The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly about the present foot-and-mouth disease situation.
Before doing so, I want to express my sympathy to the agriculture industry here, especially to farmers, for the fact that they are once again the victims of circumstances outside their control. Once more they face disruption, cost and uncertainty arising out of an animal disease that, although it originated elsewhere, impacts on their livelihoods. I want to reassure farmers that my staff and I are doing everything humanly possible to limit the problems that this latest disaster will cause for them.
I also express my regret to the Assembly for my absence last Tuesday, 27 February, when I was due to respond to a private notice question from Mr George Savage, Member for Upper Bann. I had to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister in Downing Street at very short notice on my way back from the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. At that stage, foot- and-mouth disease had not been confirmed in Northern Ireland, and it was vital that I attend that meeting in the interests of pressing Northern Ireland’s case for regionalisation. Sadly, that case has been weakened and delayed due to the confirmation that foot-and-mouth disease is present in Northern Ireland.
I first became aware of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain on 20February, when Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials advised that there was a suspected case of swine vesicular disease in a pig in an abattoir in Essex.
That disease is clinically very similar to foot-and- mouth disease and laboratory testing is required to distinguish between the two. By the following morning — Wednesday 21 February — the disease had been confirmed to be foot-and-mouth disease.
Since then, it has become clear that the disease originated in Tyne and Wear some weeks before coming to light in Essex and that it has spread considerably throughout Great Britain. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the irresponsible actions of a few individuals in the illegal trade of sheep from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have introduced the disease and placed the agriculture industry across the island of Ireland in serious jeopardy. Equally importantly, the lack of co-operation from those involved caused unnecessary delay in ensuring rapid and effective action against such a contagious disease as foot-and-mouth disease.
There has been some ill-informed and, I dare say, politically-motivated criticism of my Department’s response to this crisis. I resent the fact that some people choose to make mischief at a time when we should all devote our efforts to dealing with this most serious situation. However, I want to set the record absolutely straight about exactly what my Department and I have been doing.
On being advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain on 21 February that we were dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, I immediately banned the import from, or export to, Great Britain of live cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and other susceptible animals. I also banned the import of associated products from Great Britain. That was done by staff from my Department, in person, at the ports and airports. On that very night cargo which was already on the high seas was, turned back to Great Britain. Those measures attracted considerable criticism from Great Britain because of the trade implications, but I believed that they were the correct steps to take to protect our animal health position and to put Northern Ireland in the best possible position to make its case to be allowed to resume exports as soon as possible. Those decisions would not have been possible had we not had a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
It is impossible to put arrangements of this complexity in place instantaneously, but my Department’s approach has been risk-based. We dealt first, with the greatest threat — live animal imports — and then moved to deal with the lesser, but important, risks, such as dealing with passengers returning on flights and ferries.
It has since emerged that those steps were too late, since infected sheep had already been brought into Northern Ireland and illegally traded on 19 February — before MAFF had discovered the Essex case.
We have since had one outbreak of the disease confirmed in County Armagh and several other reports are being investigated. However, at this time, none of these is a major cause for concern.
Three-kilometre and 10-kilometre zones have been established around the farm in south Armagh. In the three-kilometre zone there is a virtual standstill on the movement of animals, except for emergency slaughter. Every road into, or out of, that zone has been sealed off. In the 10-kilometre zone very tight controls are also in place. Animals may move under authorisation in, but not outside, the 10-kilometre zone.
There have been various reports about these controls being ignored by local farmers and members of the public. My staff are doing all they can in the circumstances as regards the closure of roads, the posting of notices, provision of disinfectant and giving of advice. I have appealed to the public to stay away from these areas and to act responsibly in helping us to eradicate this disease. In the final analysis, we have to rely on their doing so.
There have also been suggestions that there should be a heavier army and RUC involvement on the border to match the activity of the Irish army and gardaí and to prevent illegal movements. My Department is in daily contact with the RUC and the Army and will call on them further if necessary.
Returning to the outbreak itself, all of the animals on the affected farm, together with those on adjacent or in-contact farms, have been slaughtered as a precautionary measure. It may also be necessary to slaughter further animals connected with this outbreak.
Members will also be aware that various lines of investigation are being pursued in relation to the sheep believed to be at the centre of the outbreak in south Armagh, and that a man was arrested recently for questioning. Several other individuals are involved in this investigation, but I am not prepared to elaborate on that at this stage, as I wish to avoid prejudicing the outcome.
So far as the smuggled sheep are concerned, we know that the vast majority of the animals in the original consignment, which was illegally traded from Scotland, where it had been in contact with infected animals at a market in Carlisle, have gone to the Irish Republic and were slaughtered in County Roscommon inside six hours. We also know now that some of the remainder of the consignment was deposited on another holding in south Armagh before being taken to the Republic of Ireland. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland have been advised.
We are also investigating reports that other illegally-traded consignments of sheep from Scotland may have been dispersed in the south Derry area. Information is incomplete, but there is evidence that some sheep from these consignments may have been sold in Swatragh market on 10 February. Veterinary staff are following this up.
All the animals that were properly certified into Northern Ireland over the relevant period and which arrived at the destination indicated on the certificate, and where the co-operation of people was given, have been traced and are being checked daily for clinical signs of disease.
I want to make clear again to the Assembly my disgust at the irresponsible way in which a very small number of people have behaved. As a result of this behaviour, the farming industry in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Ireland as a whole, has now been imperilled.
There have been criticisms of the follow-up action that we have taken. Where people have co-operated with us and obeyed the rules, we have acted swiftly and decisively. It is more difficult, however, to take action where the presence of animals is not known or where misleading information has been given as to their whereabouts. In due course, those responsible will be subject to the full process of law.
In the meantime, we have a major job to do to stamp out this disease. I have taken several measures — apart from those referred to earlier — to help in that respect. The movement of all susceptible animals in Northern Ireland has been banned except for those going to direct slaughter; all livestock auctions and markets have been banned; and the movement of horses to, from, and within, Northern Ireland has been banned for at least three weeks. I have closed the Department’s colleges until further notice. All of the Department’s forest parks are also closed.
The presence on farms of Department of Agriculture staff has been reduced to the absolute minimum, and then only where absolutely essential. I have tightened the controls on the use of pigswill. I have advised the organisers of sporting events to consider whether these are really necessary, and I have also advised against gatherings of farmers or of people on farms. I am promoting the concept of fortress farms, and I have advised members of the public not to visit the countryside unnecessarily.
I have also taken steps to ensure that, in spite of livestock inspections having been postponed, farmers will still be able to receive their livestock subsidy payments. All public utilities and local authorities have been contacted, and advice has been given in relation to their work in the countryside.
I realise that many of these measures will cause great inconvenience to the farming community and to the general public. However, I know that the vast majority of people are anxious to help and will act responsibly.
I fully appreciate the impact that all of these measures will have on everyone in Northern Ireland — from the farmers, who, as I have already said, are now subject to yet another crisis not of their own making, to the shoppers, who may find that some of the product lines that they expect to find on supermarket shelves are no longer available. However, anyone who has watched the dreadful scenes on television of hundreds of animals being slaughtered and incinerated will appreciate how important it is for the disease to be quickly controlled in Northern Ireland. I was moved by a report in one of the Sunday papers describing the distress felt by one farmer who could not bear to look at his animals knowing that they were about to be slaughtered.
My priority is to ensure that all suspected cases of foot-and-mouth disease are identified and that the disease does not spread beyond the area where it has already been confirmed. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development staff are doing everything possible to achieve that. As soon as the Department is sure that foot-and-mouth disease is eradicated here, I shall make the case to the European Commission for Northern Ireland to be freed from the export controls to which it is currently subject. I shall begin to ease the controls that I have put in place as soon as it is safe to do so.
The disease situation in Great Britain is likely to impact on the supplies of certain food lines available in the shops for some time, irrespective of what happens here.
Again, I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland agricultural industry that has responded so positively to its latest challenge and to the public for their understanding and co-operation. I also appreciate the important role that the media played in helping deliver the messages of how to prevent the spread of the disease. It is hoped that together we will be able to ensure that the potentially disastrous impact which foot-and-mouth disease can have on one of our most important industries will be minimised.

Mr Speaker: The House will be aware that the maximum time allowed for questions to the Minister is one hour. A substantial number of Members wish to ask questions. I ask them to be as concise as possible so that as many as possible may be accommodated in the time available.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland is in the midst of a catastrophe and a crisis. Every effort must be made to bring about a return to the usual situation in the farming industry. However, I appreciate what the Minister said about those people who have resisted measures put in place to try and rectify what has happened.
I was disgusted by the criticisms from her friends in the South of Ireland and from the Government of the South of Ireland. They said that they were doing everything possible to prevent the spread of the disease and that the North was doing very little. The Minister should be robust in telling her friends in the South of Ireland what she has told the House today. It is wrong to say that nothing was done. There are those who criticise the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, not because they are trying to make a political point, but because there are matters that the Minister needs to explain to the House.

Mr Speaker: May I ask the Chairperson to draw towards his question?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: At Friday’s Agriculture Committee meeting I asked the Minister to tell us the number of animals that come into this country each week to be slaughtered, but which are not. Many of those animals are still not slaughtered in Northern Ireland. I was surprised by the Minister’s reply, that due to European Union regulations, she was unable to stop those animals at the ports. They can be examined only at the place where they are to be slaughtered. If that is so, the European Union rules are responsible for those animals getting into the country. Surely she should take this matter up immediately. I have been in touch with the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, to understand the rule on this matter. If the Minister does not have the power to stop such animals coming into the country then everything else she may do is abortive.

Ms Brid Rodgers: With regard to the EUregulations, we are in a free trade area in Europe and that will continue. However, it is not the rules that are the problem; it is the flouting of the rules. Last year, due to the vigilance of my Department, we became aware that some certified animals coming in were not reaching the destination they were purported to reach. We began to investigate the matter and, by January2001, we had succeeded in stopping the majority of that. If we had not done so, we would be in a much more serious situation today, as we would have had a much greater influx of animals being illegally traded. As it happens, only a very few people were responsible for the influx of illgally-traded animals.

Mr George Savage: I understand the Minister’s comments that farmers could not watch their animals being burned — animals that they had been breeding for a lifetime. When were cattle and sheep last imported into NorthernIreland? Where did the animals come from, and what is their destination? Have they all been inspected by officials?
Last Monday, the livestock marts were open. The situation is very different today. Have adequate steps been taken to compensate these people? I know that this is not a day for asking about compensation, but will these people be compensated or reimbursed, as this is a situation not of their making? Manual workers and office staff are involved in the livestock marts. People are coming to Parliament Buildings today to find out about the situation. I would like some guidance on that. We will do everything we possibly can to assist the Department. Everything that can be done will be done. We cannot allow the industry to disintegrate.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank MrSavage for his remarks and support. I cannot now give him the numbers that he has asked for, however, if possible, I will provide them in writing. The last imports from GreatBritain were on 20February. We stopped all imports on 21February2001 and, as I have already stated, we turned them back at the port that evening.
With regard to reimbursement, the industry has already raised the question of redundancies in livestock marts and the matter will be pursued. On Saturday morning 3 March the issue was also raised at a meeting I held with officials across the Departments, and the Department responsible for that matter will look into it. A cross-departmental committee of officials was set up as a result of an emergency Executive meeting on Friday 2 March.
It is working, and there are areas which will be dealt with. I take this opportunity to thank my Colleagues in the Executive, as many of them have been taking action in relation to this in their own Departments. Consequential loss was referred to. The only compensation that is provided at the moment is 100% compensation market value for those animals that are slaughtered. However, I noted the Prime Minister’s remarks last week when he referred to consequential loss, and he said that any compensation in that area would be a matter to be looked at on a national level.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive statement this morning. I, of all people, understand the difficulties and pressures that she, her Department and her officials have had to face in the last week. I also know full well the terrible anxiety and worry across the entire agricultural community, particularly in places like south Armagh.
Will the Minister confirm that there has been a huge response from the people of that district and that there is a massive amount of co-operation and support for her efforts on the ground? Will she also confirm that there is great anger at the small number of individuals who tried to flout the rules in the early part of last week? Will she confirm that she will be resolute — as will all of us — to ensure that the interests of the wider community come first and that anybody who tries to breach the rules of this quarantine will be pursued and stopped?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr Fee that I share his disgust at the small number of irresponsible people who have put the whole future of the industry in jeopardy by their actions. I agree that there has been co-operation right across the country, particularly in the south Armagh area, from the people on the ground, who are extremely anxious. I have already referred to one farmer who was almost reduced to tears at the idea that his cattle herd was to be slaughtered. I fully agree, and I am pleased to say that there is co-operation. I hope that due process will take care of those who have acted irresponsibly, that they will be made amenable to law and that prosecutions will follow. As the House will know, investigations are currently proceeding with the RUC in co-operation with the Garda Síochána and the police across the water.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement this morning. I welcome the strict measures outlined in it, and I assure her that the people of the area that I live in and represent also welcome them. She may have confused genuine and reasoned criticism of some elements of her Department’s response to the crisis with personal or political criticism of herself. I assure her that that is certainly not the case.
Will she ensure that maximum information is given out by her Department to the people on the ground? This is the single most vocal criticism I have heard of the Department. It is not the fault of departmental officials, as often they do not have the information about which animals are to be culled and how this process is to take place. Will she ensure that the animals culled are destroyed quickly? This does not seem to be the case at the moment. Can she confirm that no complaints have been received by her Department that any officials were obstructed, harassed or intimidated in any way during this operation in south Armagh? Will she repudiate attempts by her Colleague Mr Fee — I welcome his about-turn this morning — to introduce electoral politics into this issue? That affects all of us in this Chamber.

Ms Brid Rodgers: First, in relation to maximum information, that is precisely what we are doing, and my officials have leafleted the areas in question. Clearly there is difficulty, but I shall not ask my officials to go around every farm, as was suggested earlier, for that would obviously be in total contravention of what we ask people to do.
I hope that the public will not be confused by the suggestion that officials should visit every farmer to tell him what to do. We are trying to minimise access to farms by officials and other people. However, I take the point about information, and I accept that it is important. We are doing everything in our power — via the media or by leafleting — to ensure that farmers are fully informed.
The Member referred to the incineration of animals. The most important thing is to cull animals that are a threat. A dead animal is not a threat, because it is does not exude the virus. In some cases, in which small numbers of animals have been destroyed, there has been a slight delay in their incineration. There is not much point in incinerating six animals here and six animals there, so we try to have them incinerated together. The slight delay is probably a concern only because people do not understand that dead animals are no longer a threat. Incineration will take place as soon as possible; however, if there is any threat, my main concern is to make sure that the animals are dead.
I have been approached by several public representatives about intimidation and fears of intimidation in the area. I shall take intimidation seriously. I have asked my officials to investigate the situation to reassure me that that is not the case, but I have received complaints.

Mr David Ford: I too thank the Minister for making such a full statement to the House this morning. It is a pity that no other Minister was available during her justifiable absence last week to address the Chamber on the matter.
Will the Minister take back to her private office staff, to those who have manned the helplines and, especially, to Dr McCracken and his staff, our thanks for the hard work that they have done to prevent the spread of the disease?
Does she agree that some other public agencies did not move as quickly as they might have done? Is it not anomalous that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) closed its Belfast harbour nature reserve before the Department of Environment closed its countryside parks? There was also a problem in her own Department with the Forest Service, which took until Friday afternoon to get notices printed asking people to stay out of all its forests, and left it until Saturday morning before putting some of those notices up. Can the Minister assure us that everything possible is being done by all public authorities to avoid the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have explained to Mr Savage why I was not in the House last week. I felt that it was more important to go to the Prime Minister’s meeting to present Northern Ireland’s case for exemption, should we have remained free of the disease. No-one in Northern Ireland would disagree with what I did. I did not act out of a lack of respect for the House but to ensure that Northern Ireland could be exempt if appropriate.
I have already stated that the most important thing was to stop the movement of live animals and the import of animals and their products from Great Britain into Northern Ireland; that is where the highest risk lay. I say again that the other Departments did take quick action in an emergency situation, in which it was difficult for people to know exactly what to do. Today, I shall have a meeting with an interdepartmental group of officials that was set up following the Executive meeting last week.
We hope to draw up a set of guidelines for Departments, all public agencies and people which will clearly indicate what is high risk, medium risk or low risk. When we have done that, everyone in Northern Ireland will understand what must be done and will be able to do it. The public agencies, insofar as they were able, did move in what was an extremely difficult emergency situation.

Ms Jane Morrice: I should be grateful if the Minister will clear up a great deal of confusion among the public at large, and I look at this from both a consumer and a public health point of view. Can the Minster confirm that there is absolutely no risk to people from this disease? Secondly, what would happen to someone who ate a diseased animal? Can the Minister explain the reasons for wholesale slaughter if these animals are of no risk when they are dead? Can they be eaten? I ask these questions because people do not properly understand the implications of what is happening.

Ms Brid Rodgers: There is much concern out there. However, there is no threat to public health. It is rare for humans to contract the disease. There has been only one recorded case of foot-and-mouth disease in a human being in the UK in the last 35 years, and in that case the general effects of the disease were similar to influenza, with some blisters. It is a mild, short-lived and self-limiting disease. However, there is a human condition called hand, foot and mouth disease, which is unrelated and does not affect animals. Anyone who is concerned should contact their GP. The dead animals are of a low risk, because there is no danger of the disease being spread and, therefore, there is no risk whatsoever from eating the meat from these animals.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I too thank the Minister for her statement. In her statement, she says that a few individuals are responsible for these terrible actions. Will she take the opportunity to tell this House who those individuals are? Is she able to substantiate the claims made recently by her Colleague Mr Fee that Republicans were behind much of this smuggling trade? Can she go further and confirm the comments in a Sunday paper, which named one leading Republican in the south Armagh area as being the chief instigator of this terrible and dastardly smuggling activity? Furthermore, can she tell us what actions she will put in place to ensure that these rogues never get their hands near Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry again? Finally, will she confirm to the House the level of agrimonetary compensation? Will this be made available for the entire industry? If so, when will it kick in?
The industry requires compensation at this time if it is to get over the terrible problems that have been inflicted upon it by those ruthless and rogue individuals that she has mentioned. She must be aware of the comments made by Lord Dunleath, who wrote to her at the weekend saying that he is not satisfied by certain measures that have been put in place — particularly in respect of people flying into the Province. Can the Minister go some way to assuring us that the proposals that Lord Dunleath outlined in his letter will be put in place?

Ms Brid Rodgers: All the matters surrounding individuals who have acted irresponsibly are the subject of investigation. I hope that all will come out in due course; however it would be improper for me to begin naming names where investigations are proceeding. I do not want to do anything that may prejudice the outcome.
Secondly, I dealt with the question of monetary compensation in a previous reply. Full agrimoney compensation is being drawn down as a matter of urgency for the beef, sheep and dairy sectors. I understand that the Commission has been very sympathetic and has agreed to expedite that. Also, the Member will be aware that the pig industry restructuring scheme will be extended because of the present situation.
I can assure the Member that all the necessary measures are in place at ports and airports. I came through the airport last week; it was announced on the plane that anyone who had been in contact with animals or farms should go immediately on arrival to the agriculture unit in the airport, and that announcement was also made in the arrivals area. I made a point of visiting officials at the airport. They had prepared all the spraying equipment, and they assured me that quite a number of people had already been in and had taken the necessary precautions.

John Taylor: There is a serious threat to our agriculture industry and to the general economy of Northern Ireland. I appreciate the Minister’s decision to make her statement first thing this morning. We fully support the measures that she has taken to contain this terrible disease. The problem seems to have arisen because some people in south Armagh want to extend cross-border trade beyond that which is acceptable.
The public is still confused about what it is required to do; there are inconsistencies. For example, 40,000 people in Britain are allowed to see Arsenal playing football, but a few hundred cannot attend a football match in Belfast. Roman Catholics cannot go to Mass in south Armagh, but Protestants can go to their churches to pray for the farmers. We need greater clarity and guidance from the Minister. I ask her for clear guidance on the question of groups of 1,000 or more people — many of whom come from farming areas near to where the disease started — meeting in south Armagh every day. There is no control over thousands of pupils going to schools in Newry, Bessbrook and other areas of south Armagh, yet the Minister condemns city dwellers who go to ice hockey matches in Belfast.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not certain what the Member means when he talks of thousands of people meeting in south Armagh. However, I take the point that the public is confused. It is a confusing situation, which is precisely the reason the Executive met last Tuesday. We shall co-ordinate our efforts, and I advise the Member that, shortly after I leave the House, I shall chair a meeting of the interdepartmental group that has been set up. Our first task is to agree a set of guidelines, and the public will be made aware of those as soon as the Executive have agreed them at their meeting tomorrow morning.
It is impossible for the Department or for anyone to give guidance in relation to any particular event, but we can identify high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk areas. For instance, a soccer match in a city centre attended by city people will not represent a high risk. However, an inter-county GAA match taking place somewhere in Northern Ireland and attended by people from rural areas in different counties will represent a high risk. We will give guidelines, so that people can make up their own mind. However, there was a high risk associated with people coming from Wales to the Belfast Giants ice hockey match. Many of those people were from an area in which there have been many outbreaks of the disease. It was not wise, and my Department made that clear; we did not give that advice lightly.

Mr P J Bradley: Like every other responsible Member, I pay tribute to the Minister for her statement and her efforts to meet this latest challenge.
I also pay tribute to the Minister’s Newry-based staff, who have worked round the clock since the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in imported animals. I call on farmers who have recently bought in stock and who are uncertain of its origin to contact the local veterinary office. That may also be helpful.
What arrangements are in place to resolve the conflict that could arise in quarantined herds if beef animals cross the 30-month age limitation during the closure period?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his comments, especially those about the staff in the Newry office. I am aware that some of them have been working on a 24-hour basis. At least one of my vets has not even got home and has had to sleep in the office. The Newry office staff have been working round the clock because of the outbreak of the disease in that area, and I appreciate that.
In relation to quarantined herds, cattle that pass the 30-month age point while under restriction due to foot-and-mouth disease will be eligible for disposal in the over-30-month scheme. Any loss in value that results from that will be classed as consequential; in other words, the cattle will be eligible for cull only if they pass the 30-month stage. Under the present policy there will be no compensation for that loss, but I noted the Prime Minister’s remarks. If there is to be any compensation in that area, it will have to be on a national basis.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, will the Minister dissociate herself and her party from the sweeping remarks made by the DUP against Republicans in south Armagh? Does the Banbridge Loyalist arrested for smuggling have any connections with the DUP? I have not made remarks on a basis of point-scoring. I brought real concerns to your attention this morning.
We asked many questions at the Assembly Committee meeting on Friday 23February. It was confirmed on 21February that foot-and-mouth disease was present in England. On Friday we had only half an hour to ask questions. Given that situation, we must examine the measures taken by the Department to ensure that farmers have had the proper communication about what they should do next to ensure that their farms become fortresses and are protected. Given the gaps in that communication, had the disease taken hold in Armagh, it would have been right across the country by this stage. Not enough has been done in that regard. What measures have been taken and how many farmers have been contacted in relation to advice?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not going to make any comment on remarks about Republicans or anyone else. I will not get into political point-scoring on either side of the community.
I refer Mr McHugh to my statement, in which I outlined in detail all the measures taken by my Department and myself in the present situation. In particular, I refer him to the very first measure we took, which I think Mr McHugh has either deliberately misunderstood or misrepresented, or perhaps is confused about. I want to make clear that because we are in a devolved situation I was in a position to stop imports and that I did. I immediately stopped imports of both live animals and products when I knew that we were under threat from foot-and-mouth disease.
I have advised people through the public media, press notices and leaflets to the farms in question. Moreover, I have had the support of the unions, particularly the very strong support of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), which has helped to get the message to its members and has offered non-members posters that they can put up on their farms. The UFU has continuously emphasised the concept of fortress farms. I cannot think of any other measure. If I should have taken other measures, perhaps Mr McHugh will let me know privately what they are. I outlined the list of measures very clearly in my statement.

Mr Speaker: I note that in their concern about this very serious matter, Members are letting procedure slip slightly. They should recall that when they say "you" they are taken as referring to the Chair. I am sure that it is not the Chair to whom they wish to refer.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is the wrong kind of chair.

Mr Speaker: I appreciate that I am the wrong kind of doctor, as the doctor says.

Mr Boyd Douglas: First, I congratulate the Department on the measures it has put in place. However, I have been assured that, at least up until last night, cars were able to drive on to the ferry at Stranraer without drivers’ being asked any questions about where they had been. Disinfectant was not being used. Bearing in mind that foot-and-mouth disease has been detected in Scotland and appears to be spreading, will the Minister assure the Assembly that every effort will be made to prevent the disease from spreading further in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Was Mr Douglas referring to lorries coming from Stranraer?

Mr Boyd Douglas: I was referring to all vehicles not being checked.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will have that investigated. I would be very surprised if that is the case as my officials are at the ports and are taking measures to ensure that vehicles go over the disinfected area and that there are no prohibited imports into Northern Ireland. If the Member can give me any details of a specific incident where he feels that we have been lax, I will be very keen to follow it up. To the best of my knowledge, my officials are at the ports and are ensuring that people are abiding by the ban.

Mr Paul Berry: The Minister stated that the movement of all susceptible animals in Northern Ireland had been banned, except of those going directly to the slaughterhouse. Can she confirm that a slaughter of sheep took place yesterday? Just yesterday, sheep were being transported through the village of Augher in County Tyrone.
I would also like to know what the Minister has recommended to the RUC. Is she in favour of the security forces patrolling the Northern Ireland side of the border? There are quite clear distinctions between security measures on the two sides. People going across the border into the Republic of Ireland are having their cars searched quite rigorously — even bottles of milk are being taken from them. I would like to know what the Minister has recommended in relation to the people coming across the border into Northern Ireland.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not think that Members expect me to have knowledge of every movement of animals in Northern Ireland. Authorised movement of animals is allowed from farm to slaughterhouse, and that is taking place. That is essential to maintain the food supplies.
In relation to the RUC and patrolling, I assure the Member that my Department liaises daily with the RUC and the army so that they are aware of what is required. They are taking their own operational decisions, which clearly would not be a matter for me as Minister of Agriculture. We are also co-operating fully with the Department of Agriculture and Food in the South on a daily basis, and on Tuesday of last week the RUC intercepted two illegal movements of animals in the south Armagh area. Since then, another movement of animals has been intercepted by the RUC — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: This turned out to be a legal movement. I give this information to emphasise that it is not what you see that counts, but what is happening.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister, and I join her in paying tribute to her staff at the Newry office. Given the public statement by the Irish Republic’s Defence Minister, Mr Michael Smith, and the accurate and highly commendable public comments of Mr Fee, can the Minister explain why there is still no large-scale RUC presence in south Armagh to help prevent the illegal movement of livestock, either across the border or within the area? Can she assure us that she will actively pursue the provision of an aid package for all those affected by this crisis, including owners and employees of livestock marts?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have already replied to the Member’s questions on RUC presence in the area and assistance to those affected by the crisis. I do not think it would be wise to repeat myself.
Obviously, I want to secure full compensation for everyone, but there are several obstacles, including restricted resources and EU rules. However, I noted the Prime Minister’s comments last week with regard to this matter.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I compliment the Minister and her officials on their very strong, effective and immediate action in all quarters. As the Minister has said, such activity is progressional, and cases must be prioritised according to how serious they are.
Further to her response to Mr Kennedy’s question, we are aware of the dramatic economic effect of BSE and other marketing problems on the farming industry. If compensation for those affected by this situation is not handled properly, it will almost be the nail in the coffin.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the statement last Friday by the Minister of Agriculture for France, Jean Glavany, that he was contributing £168 million over and above the compensation already being given to French farmers, albeit in respect of BSE. Interestingly, he indicated that the European Commission had given its approval for these plans for compensation in France and said that that this might herald a
"major shift in the common agricultural policy."
Under pressure from the French producers, MGlavany has made this additional allocation. In view of the economic problems that our farming community and its ancillary industries are going to experience, will the Minister take on board this new dimension and pursue the national Government at Westminster and the European Commission for substantial additional funding for all aspects of the farming industry?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have not seen the report that Mr McGrady has referred to, but I am very anxious to know if MGlavany has EU approval for state aid in this situation. I would welcome any possibility of securing aid at national level for our hard-pressed farming community and the industry as a whole.
I sympathise with Mr McGrady’s views, and I am very aware of the short-term problems that the present situation creates for many people in the industry. I hope to have a meeting with the banks and the grain people, today or tomorrow, to discuss possible measures for easing the current situation for those with cash-flow problems.

Mr Pat Doherty: A Cheann Comhairle, I acknowledge the Minister’s statement and note that the she has received no complaints about intimidation from her officials.
The British supermarket-driven cheap food policy has made a cesspool of the agriculture industry in Britain, and the Minister has been pursuing a regional agricultural opt-out policy. In view of this, is she completely satisfied that all ports and points of entry are properly inspected and are enforcing a thorough disinfecting policy? Has the Minister banned all agricultural products from entry into the North? Will the Minister consider authorising information advertisements, similar to those produced in the South, in all papers and nightly television information programmes on this horrendous foot-and-mouth disease? Will the Minister concede that there are agricultural, economic and health imperatives for total North/South co-operation on agriculture?

Ms Brid Rodgers: We will look at issues such as the cheap food policy in the future. However, my whole focus at this point is, and will remain, on keeping foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. I am not considering other issues.
The ban on agricultural products and live animals from Britain covers all cloven-hoofed animals which are susceptible to the disease. As for products, only those which have been heat-treated to a certain standard and certified by the relevant Departments both here and across the water can be brought in. All other products are banned.
Mr Doherty asked me to concede that North and South should work together on agriculture. He will be aware that I have had several North/South agricultural meetings with the Minister in the South, Joe Walsh. We have a process in place which is aimed at having joint strategies for animal disease in the North and South of the island. This is extremely important; we have already recognised that, and the process is well advanced. We are in constant liaison with the Department in the South; in fact we have been in contact on a half-hourly basis since the threat of disease came in. Clearly it is recognised on all sides of the House that there is no political implication in the co-operation which has taken place and which will continue. It is common sense because agriculture is a main industry in both North and South. We have many converging interests, and we will continue to work on that front in the confines of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Norman Boyd: I welcome the Minister’s apparently belated support for the RUC. It has been reported that many people are involved in this organised activity — not just a few individuals. Given that information, will she now call unequivocally on the constituents of south Armagh to co-operate fully with the RUC and supply the information necessary to bring to justice those guilty of illegal sheep trading?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question. Again, I regret the political point-scoring. My party’s position has always been absolutely clear. We have always supported the police service in the impartial carrying out of its duties, and we will continue to do so.
The Member asked about the illegal activities that led to the difficulties we now face. My Colleagues and I have made it very clear, and I presume that everyone in the House will concur, that co-operation with the police is essential to enable us to get to the bottom of this. We must thus ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and that this sort of activity is stamped out.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for her statement. However, I regret that she was not more explicit in her support for her Colleague MrFee, who seems to have done more than anybody else in Northern Ireland to clarify the true nature of the problem we have in isolating this disease.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Will the Minister’s Department take immediate steps to publicise widely the precise nature of the disinfecting procedures for vehicles and people, and particularly the type of disinfectant that is effective? Will she ensure that enough disinfectant is available in Northern Ireland? Will she also ensure that advice is given on the length of matting required to disinfect vehicles’ wheels? I was pleased to see that we have such matting at the MasseyAvenue entrance to this Building this morning, but the wheels of a four-wheel-drive vehicle are probably wider than some of the matting. It is important that this be dealt with precisely and in detail.
As for compensation, it is critical at this stage that measures be taken to ensure that farmers and other people can purchase the necessary disinfectant and matting.

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is very difficult to convey information to every person in Northern Ireland. However, the information the Member refers to is available on the Department’s website (www.dardni.gov.uk). Not everyone has access to a computer, and I would appreciate the help of MLAs and others who have access to the website to convey the information contained there around their areas.
Last week I was made aware that disinfectant might run out, and I took the precaution of speaking to my Chief Veterinary Officer. He assures me that ample disinfectant will be available. The list of approved disinfectants will also be available on the website, and the Department will publicise it as far as possible. Specific issues, such as the matting at the entrance to this Building, will be examined.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the way in which they have handled the foot-and-mouth issue since the scare first arose in Northern Ireland.
May I ask the Minister if it is proposed to hold a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to examine the issue in detail so that she and her counterpart in the South, Minister JoeWalsh, can co-ordinate effectively every aspect of animal protection on an all-Ireland basis?
Perhaps the Minister could give consideration to a public information video that could be broadcast on BBC and UTV, similar to the video that RTE is currently running nightly.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As far as I remember, the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is scheduled for 21March2001. Given the current situation, I intend to try to bring that meeting forward because we could usefully discuss several matters, particularly in relation to animal health. There is constant contact between my Veterinary Sevice and the veterinary department in Dublin on all relevant issues.
The idea of a video is an excellent suggestion and something we can consider. Today I am chairing a cross-departmental meeting; an emergency Executive meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, and that is something we could consider when co-ordinating our efforts.

Mr Gardiner Kane: The belief is that the staff delayed preventing import of products from Great Britain at Northern Ireland ports and airports. How long did the Department wait after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the mainland? In the light of the current crisis, can the Minister inform the House if she or her Department has considered what steps can be taken to ensure that the standards of farm produce, whether beef, lamb or pork, are identical standards to those of our Northern Ireland produce? Will there be provision for a greater inspection of imports in the immediate future?
Moreover, can the Minister confirm if the permits needed to move livestock from the UK mainland to Northern Ireland can be made foolproof? If animals are cleared by inspection and deemed fit for transport to a Northern Ireland abattoir, will that be their destination? Can the Minister confirm that they will not end up as breeding stock on a farm here? The Minister mentioned the 100% compensation for animals that have been subject to compulsory slaughter. Can she provide a breakdown of the compensation figure involved per bovine animal, sheep or pig?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have had some difficulty following the questions.

Sir John Gorman: I think you have answered the majority of them already.

Ms Brid Rodgers: MrDeputySpeaker, you are quite right.
I reiterate that there was no delay in introducing a ban on products coming in from Great Britain. On that very evening animals that were on the high seas were turned back at the port, so there was no delay.
So far as I am aware, I have dealt with all of the Member’s questions. I am not sure that I quite understood one question, but the 100% compensation is for all animals slaughtered as a result of the crisis, whether sheep, goats, cattle or pigs.

Sir John Gorman: I remind Members that we only have an hour for this debate and ask them please to keep their questions short.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her statement this morning and give credit to MsRodgers for leading the Department through very difficult times. I have two questions.
On the point raised by my Colleague, David Ford, does she accept that there was no criticism on our part over her absence from the Assembly last Monday and Tuesday? We accept that she was engaged in vital discussions elsewhere.

Sir John Gorman: I have just asked Members not to repeat questions. We have already dealt with that; please get on.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: We remain concerned that in an era of joined-up government, which was not mentioned earlier, no other Minister was available to speak on her behalf.

Sir John Gorman: Mr McCarthy, I am stopping you because that has been dealt with at least twice on other occasions. Please get on with your question. If you have got a question, ask it.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister tell us why there was no Minister in the Assembly last week to speak on her behalf? Will she tell the Assembly the total number of animals slaughtered so far in the Meigh area and throughout Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: On the Meigh farm that had a positive test, 21animals were slaughtered. I do not have the exact figures in front of me for the adjoining herds, and if I did, I would have to tally them. However, I shall let the Member have the numbers as soon as possible. With regard to my unavailability to make a report to the House, I am not sure, MrDeputySpeaker, what the procedure — [Interruption].

Sir John Gorman: You do not need to answer that; you have already done so.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not sure what other procedure there could have been. All I can say is that I could not be here.

Mr Robert McCartney: I also thank the Minister for the strong steps that have been taken to deal with the crisis. This matter should be above political points-scoring, so will the Minister confirm that the absence of any North/ South Ministerial Council meeting has not inhibited her, or her officials, from dealing with the crisis as effectively as possible? Moreover, while effective measures of the most stringent kind are necessary, does she agree that a balance has to be struck between those measures and what can only be described as ill-informed hysteria, which often undermines the attention people pay to really effective measures? Does she agree that suggestions that a ring of disinfectant be put around Belfast City Hall are examples of hysteria?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question.
In answer to the last part, I must say that I do not think that it is hysteria. Perhaps members of the public are a little over-anxious to make sure that they do everything possible. There is anxiety and recognition that this could be a very serious crisis for our agriculture industry. I do not complain if there has been over-reaction. It is understandable in the circumstances. As I have already said, we will be giving clearer guidelines so that people recognise the risks. Mr McCartney will recognise that even people from the country come into Belfast to shop, and they do go into the City Hall from time to time. There is no such thing as being absolutely certain.
On the issue of the North/South ministerial meeting, I make the point to Mr McCartney, who was not in the Chamber for my statement — I do not know how long he has been in the House —

Mr Robert McCartney: What about the Minister’s claim that this debate was not about party point-scoring? Will she answer the question asked?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I asked Mr McCartney that because I am not sure whether he has heard these points already. The fact that we have a devolved Government has been crucial in the present situation because we have been able to take immediate action to protect Northern Ireland, which we would not have been able to do otherwise, and which we did, despite resistance from some quarters.
In relation to the North/South Ministerial Council, we have established links between the two Departments of Agriculture, which are dealing with animal health on the island as a whole, and this is very important for the long-term implications. On the issue of short-term implications, however, we have not had a meeting in the middle of this crisis for the simple reason that we have been focusing on what needs to be done immediately by both Departments in this emergency. It would have been daft for officials to have spent time dealing with the papers necessary for setting up a North/ South Ministerial Council meeting at this time. We have been dealing with the situation in practical ways, and that there is now such contact between the North and the South and between Ministers has been very helpful.

Sir John Gorman: The last question is from Dr McCrea. Please be brief, as there is less than half a minute left.

Rev William McCrea: The Minister said that some of the remainder of the consignment of animals was deposited in the Republic of Ireland as well as the original ones. Can she tell us why it has been declared that we have foot-and-mouth disease here, while the same has not been declared of the Irish Republic? The Irish Republic slaughters its animals, yet no such declaration has been made. Does the Minister realise that when this crisis is over, there will be major implications if that situation is permitted to last?

Sir John Gorman: Time is up.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the seriousness of this matter, can the Chair not allow the exchange to be extended, by leave of the House, in the interests of the many Members who still have pertinent and serious questions to put?

Sir John Gorman: I understand the problem, but the Standing Orders are quite clear. One hour is the length of time that was decided by the Standing Orders Committee. Any change would have to be made by that Committee.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the House not give leave to suspend Standing Orders and allow more time?

Sir John Gorman: I understand that if a motion were to be made to that effect it could be considered by the House.

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the practice in Westminster — and surely ought to be the practice here — that if a Member is permitted to ask a question, it may be answered.

Sir John Gorman: Those are interesting points, but I think that they would require a motion to be put down for debate, whatever happens in Westminster.

Mr Roy Beggs: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said that if a motion were put down, and leave of the House were given to extend the debate, then the debate would be extended. May I verbally propose an extension of the debate for 30 minutes with leave of the House now, or must that be put down in writing in advance?

Sir John Gorman: It would have to be on the Order Paper as a proper motion. There would be no point in having Standing Orders that could be voided at any time.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Business Committee or the Procedures Committee consider that matter? The debate continued for an hour, there are still many questions to be put. How can this situation be dealt with?

Sir John Gorman: I am certain that the Business Committee will look at this and make a recommendation. But the rule is the rule. We have heard, at some length and frequently, about the necessity of observing rules, not only with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, but also concerning the conduct of the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said that I was making an interesting point. I put it to you that, under Standing Orders, if the Chair has permitted a question, surely it should be answered by the Minister. If that is not permitted, or no answer will be given, why allow a question to be asked in the first place?

Sir John Gorman: If the Minister, in her wisdom, decided to reply, that would be permissible. Minister, can you recall the question?

Ms Brid Rodgers: No.

Rev William McCrea: I drew the Minister’s attention to the part of her statement where she pointed out that animals in contact with infected animals were transported for slaughter in County Roscommon within six hours. She also said that the remainder of the consignment was deposited in another holding in south Armagh before being taken to the Republic of Ireland. Therefore there are animals there.
Why is it that we have declared an incident of foot-and-mouth disease for that consignment of animals, and the Irish Republic has not? The Irish Republic slaughters its animals, but made no declaration. We slaughter our animals and we make a declaration. Does the Minister not realise that there are serious implications for the future of our industry if that situation remains?

Sir John Gorman: This has gone on much too long. I am going to bring it to a halt. If you wish to have an answer from the Minister, perhaps she will give you a written answer.

Rev William McCrea: That is ridiculous. I have asked the question twice.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Westminster, where they have Standing Orders such as we have —

Sir John Gorman: Mr McCartney, we are not in Westminster. We are at Stormont, in Northern Ireland.

Rev William McCrea: It is a serious matter for my constituents.

Sir John Gorman: We are dealing with our own Stormont Government at the moment. I am suggesting — indeed, I am requiring — that we move on to the next motion. I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment —

Mr Robert McCartney: Are you refusing to take a point of order?

Sir John Gorman: I have already taken the point of order.

Mr Robert McCartney: You have not taken my point of order.

Sir John Gorman: You gave me your point of order.

Mr Robert McCartney: No. Are you taking the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, or not?

Sir John Gorman: Give me your point of order again.

Mr Robert McCartney: My point of order is that it is established practice, and also the practice here, that where there is no clear convention or rule here, the Standing Orders of Westminster will be followed as a precedent.

Sir John Gorman: I have referred, at least twice, to the fact that we have Standing Orders that I am observing. The Minister would be permitted, if she so chose, to answer the question despite that.

Rev William McCrea: She was stopped — you stopped her.

Sir John Gorman: Now we have moved on. A quarter of an hour has been taken out of the next important debate, and I am going to call on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr Pat Doherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have tried several times to make this point of order, but your attention was directed elsewhere. What recourse do Members have when only some parts of a multiple question are answered?

Sir John Gorman: Many people have not been called to speak. Today, some people who were lucky enough to be called used the opportunity to ask four, five or six questions. That is the problem. If people were to ask the question that is important to them we could get much more into these one-hour discussions.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I trust that you and your colleagues will direct the House so that Members understand the procedures when Standing Orders are not clear. The Speaker has told Members that when Standing Orders are not clear — Mr McCartney is absolutely right — we are governed by the procedure in Westminster. If that is not so, let us —[Interruption].
Members should not be shouting. The Speaker has ruled that this is the case. Are Members overruling the Speaker? The Speaker cannot be overruled. I want to know —[Interruption].

Sir John Gorman: It is time to move on. Standing Orders are clear, and I insist that they will operate today. I call the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We will have an opportunity to table a motion against that?

Sir John Gorman: There is no doubt that you will.

Energy

Sir Reg Empey: I wish to make a statement on energy — a subject in which there is keen interest. That has been clearly demonstrated by the Assembly’s debate on electricity costs and by the volume of questions and correspondence on energy issues which crosses my desk. As I said in the debate in November, I am surprised at the proportion of my time that is taken up by energy matters, considering the market is privatised.
This statement is timely. Energy issues affect each of us, our constituents and our environment. We must address problems such as continuing high electricity prices. We all have a responsibility to practice energy-efficiency. That is all the more so in Northern Ireland given the relatively high electricity prices here. There are current developments in the energy field that merit serious debate across the economic and social spectrum.
Various consultation documents on energy issues have been published over the past two years and others will appear over the next few months. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has begun an inquiry into energy, and my Department has set a Programme for Government target of producing an energy strategy by the end of the year. In achieving the target, I intend to take full account of the Committee’s inquiry report and will provide opportunities for wide participation in considering proposals that emerge to shape and finalise that strategy.
The past 10 years have seen very significant changes in the energy scene. In the early 1990s, the small Northern Ireland energy market was isolated from the main gas and electricity networks in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and it served a population of 1·5 million. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) was the only supplier and distributor of electricity.
Northern Ireland was almost totally dependent on imported oil and coal for its energy needs, and was fully dependent on both — but primarily on oil — for its electricity generation. There was a small liquid petroleum gas (LPG) market and environmental issues were beginning to emerge.
Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had no supply of natural gas, there was no nuclear source, and the supply of renewable sources was negligible. There were extensive lignite reserves estimated at 1000 million tonnes but those had not been developed. Those reserves constituted the only known indigenous energy resource, and hydrocarbon exploration had not identified any commercially exploitable quantities of oil or natural gas.
12.00
Electricity generation depended on imported fuels — 70% on oil and 30% on coal. Comparable statistics for the United Kingdom as a whole were 8% for oil, 70% for coal, 20% for nuclear power, and 2% for hydro-power. Most energy usage in Northern Ireland was in the domestic sector, and solid fuels — bituminous and smokeless in more or less equal measure — served 69% of that sector, compared with 11% in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Because Northern Ireland had an isolated, primarily oil-dependent, electricity system, its costs were high. Some things never change, I hear Members say. At that time, the average cost of electricity was about 15% higher than in Great Britain and 9% higher than in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland paid more for certain categories of smokeless fuels than other regions in the United Kingdom. As a result, over 7% of average gross weekly household income in Northern Ireland was spent on energy, compared with less than 5% in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The publicly owned NIE was privatised, with the four power stations — two oil-fired, one coal-fired, and one dual coal-fired/oil-fired — being sold to three private companies in April 1992. The remaining transmission, distribution and supply responsibilities were transferred to a new company, NIE plc, which was floated on the Stock Exchange in June 1993. The largest power station, at Ballylumford, was sold to British Gas on condition that the station would be converted from oil- to gas-fired. This conversion was completed in 1996. The power stations were sold on the basis of long-term generation contracts with NIE. The contracts guaranteed the stations’ payments for being available to meet any demand as well as meeting the costs of generation. More about these contracts later. Regulation of the industry became the responsibility of the Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER), subsequently renamed the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG), a non- ministerial Government Department.
The pace and significance of recent changes in the energy sector have been considerable. Today’s market is very different from that of 10 years ago. Northern Ireland is no longer isolated. It is part and parcel of a much larger European market with a continuing agenda for a single, liberalised energy market in electricity, gas and renewables. I recently announced a joint study of the energy markets North and South with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Mrs Mary O’Rourke TD, and intend to use the findings of that study to ensure that we can deliver an all-island solution firmly within a European market.
We should consider what is now in place — industry restructuring and privatisation with independent regulation; gas interconnection between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; the conversion of Ballylumford to gas firing, and — with construction of an even more efficient plant under way — the much-needed reduction of our dependence on oil-fired generation. We also have the establishment of a natural gas industry in the Greater Belfast area, with its beneficial impacts on the environment; the continuing important contributions of the coal and oil industries in providing consumers with the widest possible fuel choice; the implementation of the Electricity Liberalisation Directive by April 2001 — two years earlier than required by the European Commission — enabling our largest consumers to get the best price for their electricity; and increased North/South interconnection, which will not only stimulate that liberalised market but also assist the progressive development of an all-island trading system.
Further to this, preliminary studies have been undertaken into the possible extension of the gas market, both North/ South and to the north-west. There have been two Northern Ireland Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, (NFFO) Orders, which have resulted in contracts for some 32 megawatts of renewables, and there has been sustained promotion of both combined heat and power (CHP) and energy efficiency. Moreover, the welcome arrival of natural gas — albeit so far only in the Greater Belfast area — has given industry a much greater opportunity than was previously possible to consider and introduce CHP. Collectively, these developments have brought substantial benefits to the consumer and to our environment.
All this has been achieved through close collaboration between the public and private sectors. I want to pay particular tribute to the degree in which the various private sector interests have co-operated together with OFREG and with the Department, in delivering a much more coherent energy framework upon which to build. The consumer has also been well represented through the General Consumer Council and the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity.
Where do we go from here, and how do we build upon this framework? First, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the role of Government. My Department’s objective is to achieve a secure, diverse, competitive and efficient energy market. We are no longer the provider; our responsibility now is to set the strategic context and framework within which industry operates in a manner that ensures benefits for the consumer and the environment. In doing this, we work closely with the regulator. Part of this year’s agenda will be to look at the powers of the regulator and decide whether those are sufficient to ensure that we achieve our objective.
Secondly, the political climate has changed. Although we continue to work closely with our Westminster colleagues on the potential impact of new policies, such as those in the Utilities Act 2000 and others emerging in Brussels, there are now new drivers: this Assembly, the departmental Committees, the Executive’s Programme for Government, increasing North/South co-operation and a new emphasis on equality, social inclusion, and ensuring that the consumer is represented in the most effective way. All these must help us shape future energy strategy and there is a unique opportunity for participation and partnership to ensure that all elements of the emerging strategy are fully considered as this year progresses.
In breaking down our objective, we can take some comfort from the fact that our electricity supply is secure. We have had a recent reminder of the emergencies that can arise but, generally speaking, industry has not had to struggle with ongoing problems such as those in California. However, we are further strengthening security in the electricity market through the Moyle interconnector, which will be commissioned by the end of this year, and by reinforcing interconnection with the Republic of Ireland. Also during the course of this year, the capacity of the main Tandragee/ Louth interconnector will be doubled from 300MW to 600MW, and two standby links will be upgraded to full interconnector status. Further strengthening of links will assist the progressive development of an all-island, competitive electricity trading system, and the Executive have included a specific action in the Programme for Government to identify further interconnection projects.
A secure gas market can be achieved by a transmission link between Belfast and Dublin. The prospect of such a link has, at times, been frustratingly close. Whether it becomes a reality depends, first, on decisions by the Department of Public Enterprise in Dublin on the preferred infrastructure to meet gas demand in the Republic of Ireland and, secondly, on the economics of any proposed link. The former has now been clarified with the recent announcement approving a second Scotland-Dublin pipeline. With regard to the latter, I have received an initial submission for an interconnector linking the gas networks North and South. This submission also includes a project for a gas pipeline from Belfast to Londonderry. We are proceeding with a thorough appraisal of all these proposals.
The introduction of a natural gas supply and, subject to European Commission approval, the exemption proposed for gas from the climate change levy, have helped our diversity objective as well as bringing greater competition, consumer choice and environmental benefits. Those benefits will be extended if we are successful in bringing gas to the north-west and south-east, including towns along the route. However, to maintain diversity in generation, we will seek to ensure that our previous reliance on oil and coal is not replaced by an over-dependence on gas. There is a renewed interest in lignite as a generation fuel, although this has not yet reached the stage of firm proposals.
An important strand in ensuring diversity is the promotion and development of renewable energy sources. Up to now the Department has used its powers under the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to place a Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) on Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE), requiring the company to contract for specified amounts of electricity from renewable or non-fossil sources. Developers awarded contracts under the NFFO Orders receive a premium price for their electricity, which is financed through the general electricity tariffs.
At the end of January 2001, 18 projects had been commissioned in Northern Ireland under these arrangements, comprising eight hydro-power schemes, eight wind schemes and two biomass schemes. In addition to its involvement in NFFO, NIE launched its Eco Energy — or "green tariff" — scheme in October 1998. An additional wind turbine at Lendrum’s Bridge wind farm in County Tyrone was commissioned in December 1999 solely for production for the scheme. To date, over 1,000 domestic and small business customers have joined the scheme, demonstrating a willingness on the part of consumers to pay a premium on top of our high electricity prices for the benefit of the environment. The eco-energy tariff is now being offered to large industrial customers, and NIE’s supply price control commits it to a tenfold increase in eco-tariff sales by 2005. With the proposed exemption for qualifying renewable-sourced electricity from the climate change levy, industrial consumers will have a much-reduced premium to pay to join the scheme.
The results of an updated assessment of Northern Ireland’s renewables potential were published in July 1999. They concluded that a contribution of 115MW was possible by the year 2010, equivalent to 7·7% of the current electricity consumption. A separate study of the offshore wind potential around the island of Ireland was published in October2000. The report concluded that, on the basis of certain assumptions, 7% of Northern Ireland’s predicted electricity consumption in 2005 could be met by offshore wind energy.
Overall, however, the emergence of renewable projects is patchy. I therefore propose to issue a consultation document shortly to seek views on the development of Northern Ireland’s renewable resources. Decisions on revised renewables targets, possible renewable technology priorities and the future support mechanisms to promote and develop renewable energy will be taken on the basis of the conclusions of the July1999 report; developments in Great Britain following the introduction of a renewables obligation under the Utilities Act 2000; the recent consultation paper by the regulator; and the consultation exercise proposed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I know from the November debate that several Members have a keen interest in renewables, and I encourage them to participate fully in the consultation process.
High electricity prices have been a persistent feature in Northern Ireland and a cause for continuing concern both to industry, because of their impact on competitiveness, and to domestic customers, particularly those on low incomes. Achieving significant price reductions is a vital outcome of our objective of an increasingly competitive energy market.
There are two main reasons for our higher prices. First, production and distribution are more expensive because local power stations are smaller, the level of required back-up spinning reserve is higher and customers in our largely rural community are more dispersed. Secondly, the combination of long-term contracts between NIE and the generators put in place at privatisation and the use of relatively inefficient plant have resulted in higher generation costs, which represent 80% of industrial bills and 60% of domestic bills.
Over the past four years or so, the regulator has sought to facilitate the restructuring of long-term generator contracts to secure price reductions. Efforts to date have been partially successful. For example, NIE and Premier Power recently agreed a revised contract for Ballylumford, including the construction of the first high-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbine in Northern Ireland with accompanying generation cost reductions and environmental benefits. To complement this and any future contract restructuring, the £40 million balance of the £60 million Government support fund is being used to buy down some of the existing availability payments on the Kilroot and Ballylumford contracts, which will lead to modest price reductions. The possibility of new, state-of-the-art generation capacity at Coolkeeragh is a further positive feature for the stimulation of competition.
After generation, transmission and distribution represent the largest single component in electricity costs, accounting for 35% of domestic bills and 15% of industrial bills. The regulator has embarked on a transmission and distribution price control review, which will include rigorous examination of a continuing and growing divergence in the levels of these costs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The new price control is scheduled to come into operation in April2002.
There are clear signals that the European Commission wishes to see the expedition of the timetable for the creation of fully open markets. This will require us to seek ways of buying out or renegotiating the existing generator contracts, and we have already started work on this process. Suggestions that this issue can be easily resolved by tearing up the contracts or going, cap in hand, to the Treasury are unrealistic. The process is complex, and it remains to be seen if an acceptable solution can be found. However, just as this Administration seeks to demonstrate to the whole community its ability to govern, it must also demonstrate that it is honourable in its dealings with those who have invested in Northern Ireland and its future.
The main thrust of policy aimed at reducing electricity prices will be the introduction of increased competition in generation and supply in an all-island and European context. My Department and the regulator have been examining further ways to address the structural problems of the industry, along with the related issues of market opening and encouraging further competition. I have asked the regulator to prepare and publish a consultation paper by the end of this month, containing proposals aimed at achieving these objectives.
Our energy policy has always given a central role to the demand side — reducing energy use through promoting best practice in energy efficiency and green technologies. This is vital to economic competitiveness, given our relatively high electricity prices. The climate change levy will apply some pressure on companies to become more energy efficient. The Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) already provides an extensive package of measures to assist them, including free energy audits, the Northern Ireland Loan Action scheme and funding for the Energy Saving Trust and the Arena Network. It has also co-operated closely with the regulator in promoting the advantages of combined heat and power.
At the end of the day, energy can be saved only where, when and by whom it is used, so it is up to each and every industry in Northern Ireland to grip this issue. To further assist them to do so I am pleased to announce that IRTU will receive a further £0·9 million to fund the work of the Carbon Trust in Northern Ireland, which will carry out research and development into new energy efficiency technology in addition to promoting energy efficiency.
Effective consumer representation arrangements are a fundamental part of any emerging energy strategy. As I have mentioned, these arrangements currently reside in two bodies. As long ago as 1998, it was proposed that they should amalgamate under the General Consumer Council, and a decision on this matter is overdue. Before coming to a final decision I have recently asked the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the Civic Forum and other key interests for their views.
Of much greater significance will be the role and remit of any body responsible for the new arrangements. It is my intention that there should be wide consultation during the process of drawing up legislative proposals to ensure that consumers are equally, fairly and fully represented.
I have set the goal of devising an energy strategy by the end of this year. That strategy needs to be on an all-island basis and firmly within the wider UK and European context. A joint study has already commenced, and advertisements have appeared inviting comments. I propose to hold a public seminar in early June to discuss the proposals emerging from this study.
The strategy must be capable of delivering the objective of a secure, diverse, competitive and efficient energy market. Therefore, I urge Members to participate in the consultation exercise that I have asked the regulator to undertake, so that effective competition can be stimulated in an open market. Similarly, I look forward to practical inputs to the debate on increasing renewables. The outcome, based on a fully participative process, will be a strategy capable of meeting our energy needs in a manner which produces lasting benefits for all consumers and the environment for this and future generations.

Sir John Gorman: We have one hour for the debate. Fifteen Members have asked to speak, so I ask them to be concise. I will stop the debate at 1.20 pm as there are three Bills to be dealt with.

Mr Pat Doherty: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome this comprehensive statement from the Minister, and I thank him for recognising the Committee’s work in this area.
Given that the Coolkeeragh management and the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) are pursuing their planning application for the new power station, would the Minister comment on the guarantee of a gas pipeline from Belfast to Derry and on any further plans for wind energy projects in County Tyrone? Finally, would the Minister also comment in relation to Northern Ireland Electricity and its ongoing inability to deal with storms and adverse weather conditions?

Sir Reg Empey: First, I have said on a number of occasions that we have a proposal on the table with respect to gas pipelines, both south-north and north-west. This is the first time that we have had a firm proposal in front of us and it is being evaluated.
Part of the problem has been the delay by the authorities in the Republic in reaching a decision on their longer-term strategy. Last week, they opted for the second interconnector from Scotland to Dublin. That was not our preferred option, as Members know. We would much prefer a straightforward North/South pipeline and one going to the north-west to the introduction of an additional pipeline from Scotland, because that could have knock-on effects when the Corrib field comes on-stream in the west of Ireland in 2003. However, the Republic has made its decision because of its perceived energy shortages in the winter of 2002.
I am optimistic that at least we now have on the table a firm proposal, which is being economically evaluated. Clearly, due to the time pressures, if the second pipeline is to be in place for the winter of 2002, we are anxious to respond positively. Coolkeeragh and ESBI are at an advanced stage of negotiation, and we would like to think that we will also have firm proposals there. As yet, we have not had an application for a power-generating consent by that particular company at the site, so we await that. Nevertheless, the position looks much brighter because we have never had a proposal before now.
I will have to come back to the Member with regard to the question of wind energy in County Tyrone. There is a degree of renewable activity in that area and there is certainly greater potential.
As regards the recent storms, Members are acutely aware of the difficulties. As we have seen, they were not confined to Northern Ireland. The folk in Scotland had quite a bit of time without electricity — indeed, some may still be without it. I said last week, and I repeat, that at one stage 100,000 customers were disconnected. Whatever way one looks at that, it is a serious development. In certain cases, it can threaten health and life.
For older people in isolated locations, people who depend on electrically-operated medical equipment and families with young children who are plunged into those conditions, this has a huge social and economic impact with a life-threatening element. I have spoken to senior executives of NIE, and they have said that they will co-operate fully with the regulator and myself in examining what happened. They will learn lessons from what happened and, most importantly, try to minimise the risk of the same things happening again.
Executives from NIE accept that a gap has developed between the perceptions of what is possible and the reality. Perhaps the new handling system that was put in place by NIE was oversold, for I have received feedback that customers were not getting the information that they sought. Faults arose with the system, and many of its operators could not get in to the centres to use it because of the weather conditions. There was an unfortunate series of events, and there will have to be a prolonged post-mortem to ensure that all possible lessons are learned.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his report. Could the decision taken by the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE) in the Republic of Ireland delay the provision of a natural gas pipeline to the north-west? Does the Minister accept that the timescale for the Coolkeeragh power station is limited? Will he also accept that the nub of the problem has been the decision to go ahead with the long-term contracts after privatisation? Will that be considered as part of the strategy? In the options that the Minister put forward this morning, no mention was made of the use of Orimulsion. Was that deliberate?

Sir Reg Empey: The decisions taken by the DPE will not adversely impact on a pipeline to Coolkeeragh. The proposal that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has received from Bord Gáis and the American company Questar covers a South/North element and a north-west element. The Electricity Supply Board International (ESBI), the operating arm of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), has a strict timetable, and, as has been mentioned, it has put in a planning application for the power station. It has informed the potential builders of the gas pipeline of the timescale involved and when the gas will be required. The decision announced last week in Dublin will not affect that.
Mr Neeson is correct in saying that the long-term contracts are the nub of the problem. To cut to the chase, a bad deal was done in 1991-92. The problem is that the generating companies hold those lucrative contracts. They are being paid to be available whether they are used or not. When electricity is used, the generating companies charge the market price for it. That was the driving force behind the last major increase in fuel prices.
I have looked at that matter very closely over the past year. Unless the contracts are sorted out, no impact will be made on electricity prices. When one talks about buying out those contracts, it has to be established whether a utilities bond has to be issued to do so. Huge sums of money are involved, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking at the issues surrounding that. It is a major piece of work. There is the question of our relationship with the Treasury. I am working very closely with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I assure MrNeeson that we are working very hard in the Department. The regulator is focused on it, and we are doing everything that we can to deal with this because it is the core of the problem.
There was no deliberate intention to omit Orimulsion. It is an issue. I have met the people from South America who market the product. If the company at Kilroot wishes to make an application we will have to consider it. There is nothing to be read into its omission from my statement.

Sir John Gorman: I must remind Members that we have used quite a lot of time. Please be more concise. I ask the Minister to do the same. One way of achieving that is for each questioner to confine himself or herself to one question.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I had two questions but I will confine myself to one. With regard to offshore renewables, particularly wind generation, what steps will the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment take to encourage the heavy and marine engineering sectors to get into what will surely be an expanding market? Perhaps in the future Harland & Wolff will make more windmills than ships.

Sir Reg Empey: At present, I would settle for Harland & Wolff making anything. However, the company and its owner, MrOlsen, are very keen and have many ideas for entering into that area. They see it as a long-term growth sector, and they may well be right. As Members may know, Kirk McClure and Morton prepared a report for the Department last year on the potential of offshore generating capability. There is no doubt that there is potential for it. A pilot project is under way in the Republic, and it is possible that, by 2005, up to 7% of our electricity could be generated by renewables. In practice, that will require a significant increase in wind power, as it is one of the quickest to bring on-stream. I am entirely of the view that the Member is correct. There is potential for wind gereration and the heavy engineering sector could benefit from it. Fred. Olsen Energy ASA is very focused on it at present.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that there will be a renewable energy policy by the end of this year. Having listened very carefully to the Minister’s responses, I feel that this is not only about economics but about equality; equality of opportunity to support inward investment, equality of opportunity for choice — that is gas versus electricity. If we do not get gas in the north-west we will be building disadvantage upon disadvantage. With that in mind, will the Minister assure me that the extension of a gas pipeline to the north-west is not dependent upon a South/North pipeline?

Sir Reg Empey: I said in my statement that equality is an issue. Consumer choice and access to a wide variety of alternatives is an equality issue. That said, we have to accept that not every town and hamlet will have a natural gas supply, irrespective of what happens in the north-west. There are economic practicalities that we cannot simply ignore. However, as a general rule, I agree entirely that choice is important.
With regard to MrsCourtney’s second point, the application that I have received is a joint application covering both issues: South/North and north-west. It is being dealt with on that holistic basis.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Minister accept that the announcement on the possibility of a pipeline to Londonderry is extremely welcome news, which everyone will applaud? Will he accept that his Department has a very difficult circle to square, in that they are faced with the need to cut energy costs while not adding to the increasing amount of carbon emissions?
Does the Minister also accept that price reduction should be aimed at the poorest households, with perhaps the first 4,000 units being charged at the lower rate to enable people to have a basic level of energy, which they can use? Charges could increase as energy consumption rises.
Does he accept that the climate change issue could be a major boost to the Northern Ireland economy? For instance, why can Harland & Wolff not continue to expand its production of wind turbines?
Will his Department encourage all other Northern Ireland Departments to give a major boost to renewables by asking them to go on to the renewable green tariff, which would provide the most enormous stimulus to the production of renewable energy in this Province?

Sir Reg Empey: There is a certain contradiction, in that we have to make our electricity as competitive as possible to help our businesses be as competitive as possible while, at the same time, trying to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. The cheapest way of producing energy is not always the most environmentally friendly. Consequently, renewables are a premium supply — in other words, people are being encouraged to provide renewable energy and will receive a premium for their product.
The Member mentioned the point about the Government applying to use the renewable tariff. I will bring that to the attention of my Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is an interesting suggestion. Clearly, there would be financial implications as the Member has already stated, and those will have an impact.
In recent months, we have tried to attack fuel poverty and more resources have been brought to bear. Mr Morrow is working to ensure that as many people as possible are able to benefit from that. I hope it will be possible to help even more people, because it does not say very much for society if people are afraid to turn on an electric fire during periods of cold weather such as we are having at the moment. Indeed, many people may die, or their deaths may be hastened as a result of being afraid to turn on a fire. That is something that this community as a whole has to look at.
We have brought resources to bear in the last few months, in some of the monitoring rounds, to increase the number of dwellings receiving attention. A major impact is already being made in this area.

Ms Jane Morrice: I declare an interest in this area as I have a family member who is involved in the industry.
I want to look at the potential for renewable forms of energy. I am fascinated by what Dr Birnie and Mr Wells said about the potential for 7% of Northern Ireland’s predicted electricity consumption to be met by offshore wind energy in 2005. I know that the matter has been raised but I would like further details. What are we doing to ensure Northern Ireland will be able to produce offshore wind energy by 2005?
With regard to the potential for Harland & Wolff to create offshore wind energy turbines, would the Minister agree that while European regulations do not allow subsidies for shipbuilding, if Harland & Wolff were to diversify into marine renewable energy exploration surely Brussels could not disallow support for that industry? It would be of great benefit for Harland & Wolff and its long-term future, and for renewable energy in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister think about pursuing this matter with Brussels?

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the second point, the position is that Harland & Wolff receives an intervention aid grant. That is a unique grant that my Department offers. It is not the normal selective financial assistance that is available to other companies, which is a discretionary function of the Department. If Harland & Wolff is doing things other than shipbuilding, it is entitled to approach the Department on the same basis as any other company, and its case will be treated on its merits. It is because it is dealt with in a narrow, project-based grant regime for shipbuilding — which is specifically limited in its percentage — that its difficulties arise. If it comes up with an application which is for any product other than ships, then its case will be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other company’s application.
With regard to offshore wind energy, the Kirk, McClure & Morton study is all that we have. As Members appreciate, this is a privatised sector, and my Department’s role is to license. We can issue licences only if we get applications, and so far, we have had none. Therefore it is up to the private sector to come forward, and my Department will assess the applications on their merits.

Mr Robert McCartney: I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the Minister’s statement. The central issue — and the Minister will agree — is that electricity and energy costs in Northern Ireland are totally unacceptable when compared with those on the mainland. When one reads the Minister’s statement, one does not get a great deal of comfort. Does the Minister agree that he is really saying that the electorate should reduce the amount of energy that it uses, that the present proposals offer only modest reductions and that there is no present or immediate prospect of competition to bring the price down?
The Minister suggests that it is unrealistic either to tear up contracts or go cap in hand to the Treasury. Was it not the Treasury and direct Government, however, that negotiated these lucrative contracts for the generators? Is there anything immoral or unfair in seeking to renegotiate those contracts — although the Minister says that we must demonstrate that we will be honourable in our dealings with those who have invested in Northern Ireland, even if they have invested in terms that are totally prohibitive as far as consumers are concerned?
Finally, if there is to be no variation of the generation contracts or no appeal to the Treasury to right the wrong that it did to the people of Northern Ireland in negotiating these ludicrous contracts, just what real hope does the Minister offer to those who are suffering from outrageous and inequitable energy charges?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member is, of course, correct that the central issue is high charges — there is no getting away from that. Since I first became involved in this issue, it has been obvious that the starting point was the contracts — which are something that I sincerely hope we would never have negotiated here. It is quite clear that as long as those contracts remain in place under current conditions, prices can only be tackled at the margins.
However, I make the point to the Member that one of the problems is the high energy costs of producing the electricity because of the inefficiency of the plant. Investing in an efficient plant will directly impact on the charges paid by customers, because there is a fuel premium charged in every bill. The decision to spend £200 million on a new combined cycle at Ballylumford will, therefore, have a direct impact on prices, because there will be a more efficient plant. It will be able to produce the same electricity for about 60% of the gas usage. It is now under construction, and it will probably be the end of next year before it is in operation. The same thing could apply if the Coolkeeragh scheme goes ahead; that will also be a new and more efficient system replacing an old inefficient one. The Treasury has been approached about the issue on several occasions over the years and, undoubtedly, further efforts will be made.
Brussels wants to open the market to full competition as soon as possible, and we are getting some help with that. The Moyle interconnector will be in operation by this December, bringing pool price electricity from Great Britain into Northern Ireland for the first time. Three quarters of that capacity will be on the open market, only one quarter will go to NIE. Approximately 35% of our market will be open to competition by next month. That means that the larger commercial companies will be able to buy that electricity. The only way to deal with so-called stranded costs — the burdens that are placed on the shrinking number of customers who are still within the remit of NIE — is to buy out the contracts. That can be done either with the help of the Treasury or by way of a bond.
The approach is multifaceted: better fuel efficiency; more competition in the market; re-examination of the contracts; and modernising the plant and the machinery. Most of the plant dates back to the 1960s and 1970s and is well past its sell-by date. Modernising the plant will have an impact on prices.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the announcement that there will be consultation on renewable resources. There is a growing realisation that the future for our energy needs lies in the use of renewable resources, and, as legislators, we should lead the way on that. Mr Neeson asked about the decision on the Dublin- Scotland pipeline; I was going to ask about it, too. I am pleased that it will not have a detrimental impact on the timescale.
Prices are higher in the North of Ireland, and there is a problem with fuel poverty among lower income households. What contact does the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have with the Department for Social Development, with particular regard to the domestic energy efficiency scheme (DEES)?

Sir Reg Empey: There will be a full consultation exercise. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is carrying out a study into energy issues, which I welcome. We will consult all key interests. We also hope to resolve the question of the representation of consumers’ interests at some stage this year. All the matters require resolution within the year. The purpose of the statement was not to make any dramatic announcements today; it was to set an agenda for the resolution of outstanding energy issues for the rest of the year.
The decision to construct the second pipeline from Scotland has now been taken. That was not the decision that we would have preferred. There will not now be the competition on an all-island basis that there would have been, had the decision that we preferred been taken. It will take longer to integrate the systems fully with the second interconnector. Under our original proposal, we would have had a fully integrated system by 2003. If the current proposals are not amended, it will take considerably longer than that, indeed it could be 2013 before that will occur. Corrib comes on stream in the year following the introduction of the new interconnector. That means there will then be a huge oversupply in the market, which could affect the economics of the Corrib system. There are many problems which we cannot go into just now.
I am acutely aware of the fuel poverty issues. Our two Departments work closely together. The Department for Social Development has primary responsibility for running the fuel poverty system. However, we are clearly aware of it, we contribute, and we want people to take advantage on the industrial side. The climate change levy will impact on prices as well. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment offers a free energy audit to businesses if requested, and I am surprised that the take-up of that is not greater.

Mr Danny O'Connor: The Minister stated that we are wholly dependent on coal and oil imported from abroad. To make Northern Ireland more self-sufficient, can he assure us that he is committed to looking at all forms of renewable energy — for example, hydro-electricity and solar power? Some small schemes run on such things as biomass. Can the Minister further assure us that interconnection with the UK will not mean any nuclear tariff for Northern Ireland customers?

Sir Reg Empey: The Moyle interconnector will be available in December 2001. Electricity can flow both ways — it can be exported and imported. A 500 MW capacity — slightly smaller than Ballylumford, but the equivalent of a significant power station — will come through that cable. That is pooled electricity. In other words, it is available for sale on the open market in Great Britain. We have no way of knowing where that electricity comes from. Therefore it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that some of it would not have been generated by nuclear power stations. Twenty per cent of electricity in Great Britain is generated by nuclear power. It all goes into a central pool and, just as there is no difference between orange electricity and green electricity, there is no difference between coal-fired and nuclear electricity. We have no way of knowing.
Regarding renewables, we are committed. We have targets. We have some hydro schemes, but I have to say that a fishing enthusiast will have problems with those, and I do get some complaints. There are one or two recent proposals concerning biomass so there is interest. I have already referred to wind energy. Solar energy in Northern Ireland is not exactly a big sell at the moment because of our climatic conditions. Perhaps it is sunnier in Bangor than in other parts of the world.
We have set ambitious targets, but are people prepared to pay the premium? Renewables become more economic only when they operate on sufficient scale. That is where the potential for wind farms can play a role.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the statement by the Minister that the regulator has embarked on a transmission and distribution price control review and that the Department is reviewing the regulator’s current powers. Will the Minister ensure that that review is completed before his price control review? It could have an effect on the outcome.
Secondly, in the context of the joint study of the energy markets in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland within the European market, is the Minister aware that the semi-state generators in the Republic of Ireland may not reflect actual capital or real costs in their unit electricity prices? Will the Minister ensure that there will be fair competition so that local generating jobs are not lost to unfair competition?

Sir Reg Empey: There is a transmission and distribution review under way. It is due to be operable by April 2002. It is not clear that it is going to be possible to have the regulator’s powers dealt with by that stage, because the transmission and distribution price control review is already under way.
I said some time ago that I was considering introducing a Utilities Act. It may have to come in two parts. One of the issues that we will look at, without any commitment at this stage, is the power of the regulator. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) knows that the regulator may end up with greater powers than he has at present, and that knowledge might encourage NIE as we move through this process.
After fuel, transmission and distribution are the most significant elements that contribute to the prices that people pay. These charges are 35% for households and 15% for industry and they are higher here than elsewhere. That is a problem.
We have announced a joint study with the Republic. I am aware that our industry is privatised while theirs is state or semi-state, and I have no doubt that ultimately the Republic will have to go down the same route as ourselves. That will be demanded by the European Union. In any event, it is long past the point where people recognise that private companies are better at performing certain tasks. It has not escaped my attention that the study will look at all the potential issues and, in any case, there will be widespread consultation before any decisions are taken.

Mr Wilson Clyde: Willow biomass has already been mentioned. Electricity is being produced from biomass at Enniskillen Agricultural College and at a grain farm in the north- west of the Province. If this proves viable, will the Minister consider grant-aiding farmers to set aside land for the growing of willows and poplars for the production of electricity?

Sir Reg Empey: I know that experimental work has been carried out and that the climatic conditions in Fermanagh have proved to be the best for the production of willow biomass. The encouragement and principal incentive for people to come forward with applications is the premium offered for the unit cost of electricity generated by renewable energy sources. If the Member is suggesting taking certain lands out of current agricultural use and putting them to another use, with a double premium involved, I will have to take advice from my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture.
The principal incentive is that a premium will be paid for electricity generated by the biomass method. That is why there is a premium: to encourage people to produce electricity by non-fossil fuel means. I can assure the Member that if we are to achieve our targets, such premiums will continue to be necessary.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement in view of the complexity of the issues relating to both domestic and industrial consumers in Northern Ireland.
Are we so tied with generator contracts that we have no influence on them? It seems important that the regulator be given some real teeth so that he can tackle the pricing to the consumer in relation to transmission and distribution.
Lastly, is the Minister telling us that the only future for us with regard to lower electricity prices is to import electricity from the Republic or Scotland? Given that the Republic is at the limit of its capacity, there is a major problem.

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the latter matter, I am not saying that at all. Imported electricity merely allows trading to take place. If the means to import is there, the mechanism to export is there. If current proposals are carried forward, we will have a surplus of electricity generation in Northern Ireland. Currently the interconnector is primarily used to export electricity to the Republic. It can, of course, be used to cover for emergencies, and if we have a demand spike, then we can import. However, we are exporting most of the time because the shortage is on the other side. Part of the problem is that the distribution mechanism in the Republic is not able to take large amounts for a long period of time, but that is being looked at.
I do not see our being dependent on imported electricity, because we are trying to make generation here as efficient as possible. New plants like Ballylumford and, I hope, Coolkeeragh, and the new Moyle interconnector all bring new sources at a lower price into the equation. Sooner or later that is bound to bear down on prices, particularly as we have opened up the commercial market to the extent currently required by the European Union. However, I believe that the European Union will go for greater market opening, and we are certainly prepared for that.
The contracts are there. They are legally binding contracts in black and white, and we cannot pretend that they are not there. The regulator is working as hard as he can to try and renegotiate, but you have to ask why somebody who has a lucrative contract would simply cast it aside. I am quite sure that if the hon Member held one or two of these contracts, we would all be in difficulties. That is the situation that we have. We are trying to deal with it as best we can, but it is not going to come easy and it is not going to come cheap.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Prices here are 15% higher than in the rest of the UK and 9% higher than in the Republic of Ireland. The best prediction that you can give us is that we will get 7·7% of our electricity from renewables. We have the prospect of a climate change levy. Despite the best efforts that you can make, are we not faced, because of the original agreements and contracts that were signed, with very high energy costs that are going to be added to by the climate change levy?

Sir Reg Empey: There is a certain element of truth there. If we sit and do nothing, that is exactly what will happen. It depends at what point you measure, but our prices are anywhere up to 25% higher. It depends what you are measuring against and what you are comparing. However, if we simply add the climate change levy and the increased fuel prices and do not take any action, then that is precisely the result that will flow from that. It is precisely that outcome that I am determined to avoid. That is why it is essential to try to set down a few targets for ourselves and why I wanted to do so at an early stage in the year.

Mr Arthur Doherty: The Minister referred to the potential of offshore wind generation. That would impact very positively on sustainable development in both environmental and economic terms. Since Mr Esmond Birnie anticipated my main question, and I suspect that the Minister’s response to Ms Jane Morrice dealt substantially with my other question, I will simply ask the Minister to explain the assumptions that helped form the report’s conclusions about wind energy.

Sir John Gorman: I congratulate you on the brevity of your question.

Sir Reg Empey: The first thing that the Member has to understand is that no assumption is firm. They have made very interesting maps of the wind patterns and flows throughout the island. They then have to take into account the depths involved, et cetera, so it is a very intricate measurement to calculate. If Members get an opportunity to look at the report, they will find it interesting.
They make assumptions about the best physical location, consistent with wind direction, the amount of time during the year that that wind is blowing and the seabed conditions in the area. It is on the basis of these factors that they are recommending that it is physically and logistically possible to generate a given amount of electricity and that it is economically possible to do so within the suggested timescale. Theoretically, one could build wind farms ad infinitum until all our electricity was generated in this way, but if calm weather conditions were to prevail, we would be back to using batteries.
You can only go so far with each energy option if you want to have a diversified system. No firm assumption can be made about anything, but experts have looked closely at the weather patterns, the seabed situation and the economics involved, and they have made recommendations to both the Republic and ourselves. At present we are running with those, and we hope that there will be further significant development. To cover 7·7% of generation using renewable resources would mark a dramatic increase on anything that we have here at present. Given that we do not have any significant hydro schemes, there must be a significant commitment to other renewable resources.

Mr Jim Shannon: In the light of the increase in electricity charges from 1April2001, will the Minister explain the role of the regulator in controlling NIE prices? How can he ensure that dividends for shareholders do not take precedence over charges to NIE customers? What grants and incentives are available to increase the use and provision of alternative types of energy, for example, hydro, wind, biomass and solar power?

Sir Reg Empey: If NIE wishes to increase its charges, it is obliged to notify the regulator. In this instance, NIE argued that, on the basis of the increase in the amount of raw materials needed to generate power, the generators were increasing the cost to the customers. They are entitled to do this because fuel costs are a part of the electricity premium that the customers pay. The regulator looked at NIE’s arithmetic and concluded that the charges reflected accurately the costs that were being incurred by the generators. These costs were not being incurred by NIE because of its operations, but on the basis of the bill charged by the generators for producing the electricity. He concluded that that was accurate enough in this case.
I accept the Member’s point about the dividends for the shareholders, but that is not, in itself, a matter for the regulator. However, I am reviewing the extent of the regulator’s power, and I want to hear the opinions of Members and the Committee. We are looking closely at this matter to ensure that the regulator has at his disposal the necessary tools to do his job. He is currently involved in a major review of the transmission and distribution element — a huge issue — and, if he concludes that a certain change in the pricing structure is required, this will be introduced by April2002.
On the question of the use of renewable resources, I indicated that the incentive for the provision of renewables is the premium that is paid for electricity generated in that way. Whether or not people actually use renewable energy is down to personal choice, because the renewable premium, the eco-premium or green tariff requires a higher payment. Therefore as far as I am aware, there is no cross subsidy in the system at present, and, indeed, as people are paying a premium for it, it would not make much sense suddenly to start subsidising it because that would in many ways defeat the objective.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Edwin Poots: Can OFREG take into account the fact that oil prices have now fallen since NIE made the initial announcement of a 9% price rise? Given that the price of oil is not what it was when the initial announcement was made, can that not now be revised downwards?
When will the Minister be in a position to decide whether or not to give the go-ahead for Orimulsion for Kilroot?
Will the North/South interconnector involve the building of a power station in the south-east of the Province? I assume that that pipeline is running through the south- east of the Province. If it does not involve the building of a power station, is that scheme still viable?

Sir Reg Empey: Oil prices have fallen since the announcement was made; it is relevant for the regulator to take these matters into account. Of course, it will be pointed out to us that the oil prices rose well before the actual increase was applied for, and we will probably be told, "Well we had to take time to react to a price rise so it is only right that we take time to react to a price fall". But the answer to the Member’s question is that the current market price of the raw materials for electricity generation is a legitimate area for the regulator to review. I have no doubt that he will do so.
With regard to the Orimulsion issue, there is no application before the Department at the moment to produce electricity based on Orimulsion. All that has happened is that the suppliers of the fuel have been in Northern Ireland. I have met them. They have indicated that they want to see Kilroot use this fuel. I have asked them some questions on the environmental issues which may arise. I have sought experience from other European countries but currently there is nothing on our table from any company which wants to convert and generate. As soon as I get an application, I will look at it. I am interested in what Members think of Orimulsion as a fuel, because I would wish to take into account their views before reaching a decision. So far no application has been made.
A power station in the south-east of Northern Ireland on the route of the interconnector would be ideally located at present. For example, a power station in the greater Tandragee area would be in a perfect position. Again, that is a matter for the private sector.
With a power station the economics would be infinitely superior. The study I am having undertaken on the application is giving an early indication that without it there may still be positive possibilities, albeit more difficult ones than if we had a power station there. It is still my intention to go for the comprehensive north- west and south-east solution. That is still our objective. That application is currently on our table; it is being economically and logistically reviewed at present.

Mr William Hay: I know that the Minister is aware of the very long campaign fought for natural gas in the north and north-west of the Province, by the local authorities there. The Minister and his Department have worked extremely hard to make this a reality. However, can the Minister indicate to the House the timescale he envisages as necessary for natural gas actually to get there?
Can he give the House a realistic timescale on natural gas coming to the north and north-west of the Province?

Sir Reg Empey: If we are spared to see this interconnector and the north-west pipeline installed, I will be the first in Londonderry to check the Member’s house to see that he has a gas cooker.
We are looking at a timescale of three years. For a power station to be operational by 2004, the go-ahead for construction will have to be given this year.
I was not joking when I said I would be up in Londonderry.

Mr William Hay: For your tea?

Mr Speaker: I had better draw these offers to a close. The time for questions to the Minister is up.

Budget Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware, as will other Members, that I tabled 12amendments for consideration at this stage of the Bill. In our view, the purpose of those amendments was to remove wasteful expenditure on the all-Ireland dimension of the agreement and retain that expenditure within the Northern Ireland Departments. For the benefit of Members, Mr Speaker, I should be grateful if you would say why those amendments have not been accepted.

Mr Speaker: The Member will be aware that it is not modern practice for Speakers to give reasons for the selection or non-selection of amendments. From time to time, however, it is appropriate for a Speaker to identify the principles upon which selection is made.
In this case the process under which the 12 amendments submitted were not selected identifies an important principle. I cannot draw to mind any circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me or any successor as Speaker to select amendments which, if made, would render a Bill ultra vires. Such a Bill would not proceed to Royal Assent, since the Secretary of State would not grant permission for that. For the propriety of the Assembly and its proper business, it seems inappropriate for amendments to be selected which, if made, would make the Bill ultra vires.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but for the purposes of clarification it appears that your ruling confirms what many of us suspect when we look at the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The North/South implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council are given a special and privileged position within the legislation. While it may be possible to amend allocations and appropriations in respect of other items of expenditure, these items are specially protected. That is a lesson that will not be lost on the wider Unionist community.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is a devolved body and is therefore subject to the legislation under which it and the other institutions consequent upon the Belfast Agreement were established. The Assembly is also subject to other pieces of legislation such as the Human Rights Act and so forth. The Member is correct in saying that the institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement are not subject to the procedures of the Assembly. They are not devolved matters which we can address.
As no amendments have been selected, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the clauses and then the schedules.
Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: Final Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: That the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00] do now pass.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the various Committees that were involved in the scrutiny of the Bill. The Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee played a significant role in dealing with some very complex issues and in shaping the Bill’s final form.
I am particularly grateful for their support in ensuring that the Bill can be passed in the current financial year. The primary purpose of the Bill is to enable departmental estimates and accounts to be prepared on a resource rather than a cash basis. It marks a major milestone on the way to full implementation of resource accounting and budgeting in Northern Ireland Departments and demonstrates a commitment to introducing best practice accounting methods to the public sector.
Those changes will improve the way in which the Assembly votes and scrutinises public spending with proper management of the full costs of Government activities, better treatment of capital spending and systematic reporting of allocations of resources to objectives.
The Bill also makes a number of important improvements to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers to scrutinise public spending. As I have indicated, I am committed to securing appropriate forms of audit and accountability for Northern Ireland, and this Bill is a first in that process. Following the necessary wide-ranging consultation I intend to introduce further legislation that will deal more specifically with local audit and accountability arrangements. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00] do now pass.

Street Trading Bill: Final Stage

Mr Speaker: At Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, an amendment was made to clause 17, which deals with a penalty. As that is a reserved matter under paragraph 9(b) of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I was required to refer the matter to the Secretary of State before the Bill could proceed to Final Stage.
The Secretary of State has given his consent, and the Bill can therefore properly have its Final Stage.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That the Street Trading Bill [NIA 2/00] do now pass.
The Street Trading Bill replaces the provisions of the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929, which relates to the licensing of street trading. The Bill seeks to enable district councils to control and regulate street trading and their districts in such a way as to prevent undue nuisance, interference and inconvenience to persons and vehicles.
The 1929 Act has become outdated, which is hardly surprising since today’s street traders operate in ways that were unheard of 70 years ago. The Bill introduces more effective measures for dealing with unlicensed trading and those who trade contrary to the terms of their licence. However, it also seeks to provide a more transparent system in which the rights and responsibilities of councils and traders are properly addressed.
District councils have indicated that they will need time to set up new administrative arrangements. Existing and prospective traders will also require time to familiarise themselves with the new legislation, and to that end the Bill contains a clause stating that the new provisions will come into operation on a date appointed by the Department. It is planned to make the Bill operational four months after Royal Assent.
Finally, I would like to thank Members for their interest in and contributions at the various stages of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Chairperson and members of the Social Development Committee for their diligence in the scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I congratulate the Minister and the Department for seeing the Bill through to the Final Stage. I also congratulate the Committee for its work. I had the privilege, as the then Minister, of introducing this piece of legislation to the Committee, and I am glad to see it reaching the Final Stage today. I also take the opportunity, on behalf of Members who are not present, to say a word of thanks to the Minister for taking on board the representations made to him, and the arguments put to him, on a number of amendments. These amendments, in the view of many of us, will strengthen the legislation considerably, and they will give local councils the powers that they need to deal with the problem of illegal street trading and, at the same time, provide proper regulation.
The Minister and the Department have shown a great deal of flexibility and a willingness to listen to points that have been made. As a councillor on Belfast City Council, I know that officials in the health and environmental services department are looking forward to being able to tackle the problem of illegal street trading in the centre of Belfast with the new powers that have been given to them under this Bill. I want to put those comments on record — not only on my behalf, but on behalf of other Members, some of whom are not present.

Mr Speaker: Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have said all that I want to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Street Trading Bill [NIA 2/00] do now pass.
The sitting was suspended at 1.26 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair)—

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Question 10, standing in the name of Mr David Ford, has been transferred to the Department for Social Development and will receive a written response. Question 4, in the name of Mr Roy Beggs, has been withdrawn.

Commission/Strategy for Children

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what contact have they had with representatives of children’s groups regarding the creation of a consultation paper on a commissioner for children/strategy for children.
(AQO1000/00)


We recognise the need to draw on the experience and expertise of organisations who work with children and represent their needs.
The Deputy First Minister and I had a meeting with a number of such organisations on 20 February. They included Save the Children, Barnardos, Children’s Law Centre, the Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association, Parents Advice Centre, Playboard, Putting Children First, Voice of Young People in Care, and Childcare International (Northern Ireland). The meeting was very positive, and we look forward to continuing to work in partnership with children’s organisations in developing our proposals.


From speaking to a number of the organisations mentioned, I know that they found the consultation exercise very positive at this stage. Can the First Minister outline how the inclusion of representatives of those children’s organisations will be taken forward, considering that they will not be represented on the working group?


The discussion we had on 20 February was very much a preliminary discussion in which a number of general areas were raised. From our perspective, we very much welcomed the exchange. Obviously, officials will be speaking to those organisations, and to others, in greater detail as part of the consultation and as part of the development of our proposals.
The interdepartmental working group is one thing, but we do wish to engage in a very wide-ranging discussion with people who have practical expertise in this area.


In again welcoming the decision to appoint a children’s commissioner, may I ask the First Minister to assure me that the Assembly will have ultimate responsibility for children’s matters?


Of course, any legislation will have to be enacted by the Assembly, and so the Assembly will have to consider its relationship with the children’s commissioner. Indeed, the Assembly may wish to consider whether it wishes to have any particular procedure for that responsibility, perhaps through one of the existing Committees. Naturally, the ultimate responsibility will rest with elected representatives here.

North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the items planned for discussion at the next North/South Ministerial Council plenary session.
(AQO997/00)


5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an assessment of the work in progress in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
(AQO1815/00)


With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 5 together.
The items planned for discussion at the next North/ South Ministerial Council (NSMC) plenary session have not yet been agreed. However, at the last NSMC plenary meeting it was agreed that a report on the study on an independent North/South consultative forum, and one on competitiveness between the two economies, would come forward to the next plenary meeting.
Overall, there is some progress in both the NSMC and the British-Irish Council (BIC), although in some areas that progress has been slower than had been hoped. Of the NSMC’s six implementation bodies that were established, some have been meeting and working well, others have not been meeting. There is substantial progress in a number of the areas, mainly at official level and in terms of co-operation. The work of BIC continues centrally at official level. Difficulties over nomination to both bodies have held back meetings in plenary session, and in some sectors.
The failure of the Minister for Regional Development to participate fully in the institutions has made progress in transport in both BIC and NSMC less easy. The first sectoral meeting of each body, led by the First Minister and myself in December 2000, commenced the work, which is much needed.


I thank the Minister for his detailed reply on the proposed agenda for the next North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting. I agree with him that the non-participation of the DUP in certain areas is to the disadvantage of the people of Northern Ireland and I hope that that situation will be remedied very quickly.
We had a strong, emotional debate this morning about foot-and-mouth disease and the many animal health problems that face this community and, indeed, the entire island of Ireland. Will the First and Deputy First Ministers ensure that animal health is a priority on the agenda for the next NSMC meeting? Considering our experiences, many people cannot understand why an implementation body has not yet been created to give this issue a full review.


Despite our powers of persuasion prior to the Good Friday Agreement, it was not possible to have the type of implementation body that many of us wanted. I hope that attitudes will change and that those powers of persuasion will be used more successfully. The importance of co-operation in agriculture on a North/South basis has already been recognised by this Administration and by the NSMC. Animal health is already one of the areas of co-operation in the NSMC. At the last meeting of the NSMC agriculture sector on 17November2000, the council endorsed proposals to formalise liaison arrangements at official level on the full range of animal health matters.
The Council agreed that a strategic steering group should be established to replace the current arrangements. The group would co-ordinate animal health policy on the island. In support of this group, working groups would be set up to consider policy issues on animal health that affect the whole of this island. I am certain that foot-and-mouth disease will be discussed at the next agriculture sector meeting scheduled for 21March2001.


Will the Deputy First Minister agree that the problem with the North/South Ministerial Council lies in the failure of Republicans to fulfil their decommissioning obligations? Does he agree that Sinn Féin Ministers have a responsibility and that they cannot expect to take all the benefits and give nothing in return? Will he support the calls for decommissioning made by Archbishop Brady and the Member for West Belfast, MrAttwood?


The relevance of that question to questions two and five is immediately obvious. However, I will give my views, as the Member has requested.
I have always stated that there is a requirement for decommissioning — it is in the Good Friday Agreement. It is essential that people throughout the North of Ireland are satisfied that there are no illegal weapons or explosives held in this country. I have no problem with stating that again for the record.
In relation to that, and to the question under consideration, a judgement has been made in the courts of the land, and that judgement, pending appeal, stands. There is important business to be done by the Executive, by the North/South bodies and by the British-Irish Council. We should not have any reason to impede that important work.


Does the Deputy First Minister not think that it ill becomes him to come to the House and attack a party that has been consistent in its attendance to this matter? Should he not turn to his partner sitting beside him, who has taken this matter to the courts of the land and is not even nominating his own Ministers now?
I congratulate him on finding that the DUP had set the right example. Does the Deputy First Minister not feel that it ill becomes him now to tell us about all the good things that will come? His dreadful partner — under the terms of the agreement, they act together as Prime Minister — is responsible for this election gimmick.


I commend the Member and his party for their consistency — they are consistently wrong. Consistency ceases to be a virtue when it is based on a false premise.


The Deputy First Minister makes a virtue of consistency. Can he tell the Chamber why, at the SDLP conference in November 1998, when talking about decommissioning — with which he is now prepared to dispense — he declared that if the Executive were formed and there was no decommissioning, he would join with his partner-in-crime in hunting the offenders from the Assembly?


I commend the Member for his consistency — he is consistently inaccurate. What I said at our party conference is a matter of record, and I will produce the record for the Member. There was a two-way guarantee — [Interruption]


Order. This time is for asking Ministers questions in order that they might respond. There is little parliamentary purpose in asking questions and then not listening to the answers that the Minister gives.


Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. Some Members are consistent in making noise.
I made a guarantee; in fact, I made two guarantees. I said with regard to the institutions that the goalposts could not and should not be moved. My offer was never recognised, and we saw what happened then — suspension and other things. In the interests of accuracy, I will ensure that the inconsistent Member receives a copy of what I said at the party conference before the end of the afternoon.

Northern Ireland Executive: Brussels Office

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail when it is intended that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister will visit the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels.
(AQO972/00)


The office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels should be completed in May. We have not, as yet, made any plans to visit the office, but we will consider how best to launch it in order to gain maximum benefit from our presence in Brussels.


I received a written response from the First Minister today about staffing. The Executive are in the process of making two senior appointments to the office in Brussels. Can the First Minister assure me that it will not be a case of jobs for the boys and the girls? What will be the full staffing complement of the office? How widely will the jobs be advertised? What is the target date for the official opening of the office?


We hope that the office will open in May. The delay is regrettable, but it will not frustrate our objective. We have appointed the head of office, and that person will take up post in Brussels on 26 March. The office will be located in the United Kingdom permanent representation until our own facilities are available.
Posts will include head of the office, deputies and locally recruited support staff. The first two mentioned are members of UKRep. consequently, they have diplomatic status, so it is necessary for them to be civil servants. The post was trawled internally and filled in the normal way. There is no question of "jobs for the boys".


Does the First Minister agree that the absence of an established, dedicated office in Brussels is not helping us to keep Europe informed about the present difficulties facing our agriculture industry? Does he also agree that the sooner we get the office opened, the sooner we will be able to arrange events such as the excellent "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition hosted by MrRoyBeggs MP at Westminster last week?


Mr Roy Beggs MP took the initiative with the support of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the IDB. It was an excellent venture, and it would be good to be in a position to replicate that in Brussels.
As I said in an earlier reply, the head of our office will be in Brussels this month. It would be nice to have our own office accommodation available immediately, but I am quite sure that he will actively represent Northern Ireland’s interests from the outset. The Member is right to refer to the agricultural problems we are facing. They are very significant. The improvement to our representative capability in Brussels will be very welcome.


Does the First Minister agree that it would be much better to have a dedicated office representing the Assembly in Brussels, rather than one for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, occupied by the cronies of the said Ministers?


It is not right for the Member to refer to the civil servants who will be occupying those posts as "cronies". Would the Member make a comment like that about officials generally in the Civil Service or about the civil servants servicing his Colleagues? We should have a little bit more decorum in the way that questions are put.
It is clear that an office of the Executive is needed to represent the Administration. We hope to work closely with other bodies such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) and, indeed, with the MEPs. I hope the Member’s Colleague, who is an MEP, will be prepared to co-operate with us in a more positive way than he is.

TSN Action Plans

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the departmental targeting social need action plans approved by the Executive to date.
(AQO994/00)


All Ministers have agreed their Department’s New TSN action plans, and those plans are now being implemented. The Executive Committee have agreed to publish a report explaining the New TSN policy and setting out departmental action plans. We expect that report to be published in March.


I thank the First Minister for his answer. Can he advise us of the status of any of the action plans published by public bodies — subsidiaries of Departments — in advance of the Executive’s agreeing departmental action plans? Furthermore, in the light of the NISRA report published last Friday, which indicated the continuing unemployment differential between Catholics and Protestants, can he assure us that implementation plans should be more than just targeting efforts and existing resources? Resources should be focused on areas of greatest need to ensure that issues like the unemployment differential are effectively tackled in a realistic timescale.


New TSN was initially developed under direct rule. We have adopted it and are working it out in practice. We will be publishing the departmental programmes and plans in March and the Member will be able to see them then.
One of the things we wish to do — and we will return to this when we debate the Programme for Government later on — is develop the Northern Ireland economy in such a way as to get as close to full employment as possible. The unemployment differential, as it is called in Northern Ireland, has been remarkably stable over the course of the last 25 years. However, the differential between Protestants and Catholics is less than that which exists in the Republic of Ireland — a little-known fact, but one that is relevant and shows the intractability of the problem. We will tackle it by trying to provide as much employment as possible and eliminate unemployment generally. That is the best way to tackle the issue.


I welcome the First Minister’s answer. Can he tell the House how progress on the implementation of the New TSN plan will be monitored?


There will be opportunity to monitor the implementation plans through the Assembly and its Committees, in the same way that Members can monitor the activities of Departments generally.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has its own Equality Unit. This unit will be keeping these plans and their implementation under review. The Deputy First Minister and I are very concerned to ensure that the Administration’s obligations to carry out and implement policies that deal with people fairly across the board and to promote equality of opportunity are met.
We will be looking very carefully at the operation across the Administration to ensure that equality of opportunity is genuinely promoted and that plans, proposals and policies that are unfair are not adopted.


Does the First Minister agree that the unemployment statistics published last Friday illustrate that all sections of the Northern Ireland community are moving much closer to full employment?


That is certainly true. Unemployment is now down to 5·8%, which is close to the lowest record historically. The lowest figure in the twentieth century, so far as I am aware, was 4%, so 5·8% is very encouraging indeed.
There will be significant problems, however, in tackling long-term unemployment and ensuring that people have appropriate skills to enter the labour market. That is why — as we will see when we debate the Programme for Government — that one of the chief emphases of this Administration will be on developing skills in order to enable people to move into the labour market and to take up the benefits of employment opportunities we hope to create.

Victims: Bloomfield Report

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail discussions the Victims Unit has had with the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office regarding the implementation of the Bloomfield Report.
(AQO957/00)


I first want to pay tribute to the Member for her interest in this issue and her efforts, long before it became fashionable.
The Junior Ministers, Mr Haughey and Mr Nesbitt, regularly meet Mr Ingram, the Northern Ireland Office Minister for Victims, to discuss the matter. The next meeting will take place in the very near future. In addition, officials from the Victims Unit meet their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues relating to the needs of victims, including the Bloomfield Report.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for his personal comments. As I have been working in respect of this issue for over 15 years, I do not think that it was a backhanded compliment, but rather a reflection of the work that I have done.
Does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the relationship and work programmes of both units are clear and obvious to all victims — individuals and those in organisations? Can they be assured that they will all be treated equally? Will they also be entitled to apply for the moneys that were announced by the Minister, Adam Ingram, some time ago?


I very much take the point that the Member has made. We are, as are the junior Ministers, keenly aware of the need to work closely with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office and to have regular meetings to ensure that gaps in service provision do not appear and that key areas are being addressed by the relevant parties.
In addition, an information leaflet outlining the split of responsibilities between the two units was sent recently to individual victims’ groups and political parties’ spokespersons. This exercise has received a very positive feedback.
On the last point, I can assure the Member that the Northern Ireland Office will distribute the money that was recently announced. We will be having discussions about that to ensure that we have a very substantial input and that that money is used to the best advantage.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for what he said in relation to victims. Does he accept that the word "victim" is bandied around a great deal and that there are many people in Northern Ireland, whose family members were killed or banished, that suffer and are victims too? Can the Deputy First Minister tell the House how his Department defines a victim?


I take the broad point. Over the years we have often heard about lace-curtain poverty throughout Northern Ireland and elsewhere. A similar factor applies to this issue. We should be aware that the entire community has been a victim of the ongoing violence and counter-violence of the past 30 years.
To respond to the Member’s immediate question, I do not think that it is possible to have a totally definitive position on it. Let me try this for size — Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s definition in his report is
"the surviving injured of violent conflict-related incidents and those close relatives or partners who care for them along with close relatives and partners who mourn their dead".
Unfortunately, there are far too many in each category in the North of Ireland. However we define the term "victim", we must realise that there is a need for individuals, groupings, and the entire community, to feel their way out of that terrible period.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister assure the House that much needed funding for victims’ and survivors’ groups will not be syphoned off by Government Departments through bureaucratic administration costs?


I again put it on record that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was allocated £420,000 in the current financial year to assist victims. Final decisions on the allocation of these resources have not yet been made. However, the emphasis will be on providing practical help and support by contributing to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, supporting the four trauma advisory panels, assisting with specific projects undertaken in the health and trauma fields, developing capacity building and by commissioning research on service provision for victims. Of course, the European Peace II programme will include a specific measure for victims, with funding of approximately £6·67 million. This money will become available in the next financial year.
Finally, no one in this society should ever fall into the trap of considering that there are good victims and less worthy victims. All victims need help, and they require the total support of the community. So far as we are concerned, they will get it.

Departments’ Replies to Assembly Members

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the average time taken by each Department to reply to written representations by Members of the Assembly and to give an assessment as to how this has changed since devolution.
(AQO943/00)


Departments aim to issue ministerial replies to correspondence from Members within 10 working days of receipt. However, depending on the nature of the information sought, some replies may take longer. In such cases, interim replies may be issued to keep Members informed. The position pre-devolution was similar.
We think that to calculate the average time for replies to Members’ correspondence would incur disproportionate costs for all Departments.


Is the First Minister aware of the fact that it has taken over 20 working days for the Minister of Health to reply to me on the issue of time worked by junior doctors? That does not meet the aim that he has just outlined. Does he not accept that the arrangements that he and his Colleague put in place — consisting of 10 ministerial Departments, 2 junior ministerial Departments and all the "North/Southery" accoutrement — are expensive and excessive and involve duplication? Furthermore, does he not agree that we have too many Ministers but too little democracy? Does he accept that now is the time to review and reduce these arrangements so that Northern Ireland can have the democracy that it is entitled to?


I note the Member’s use of the words "expensive" and "excessive". I must congratulate him in one respect — he has asked more questions than any other Member. Many people will think that his efforts, at a cost of nearly £100 for each question, have been excessive and expensive in themselves.


This issue is of great importance to many Members, not just in terms of the number of written questions sent directly to Departments but also for the number of questions tabled for oral and written replies here. Can the First Minister quantify the actual value of this pile of questions, which he indicated Mr Paisley Jnr has asked?


I am afraid that the First Minister will have to respond in writing since the time for his questions is up.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an interjection, which I suppose could be interpreted as a question, Mr McCartney made an allegation which was incomplete. In the interests of accuracy — and with your tolerance — may I put the matter right? This is what he omitted:
"Similarly, there is a fear among Sinn Féin supporters that whatever they do Unionists will up the ante by contriving new demands and conditions to exclude them from executive office. Again, I believe that this is an unfounded" — [Interruption].


Order. Will Members please resume their seats. I will have to make a comment about matters of order in response to a question earlier today, but I hope that those who raise points of order will remain in order. The Deputy First Minister is responding to something that was said earlier, and I have to say that this does not seem to be a point of order. However, on a number of occasions Members have sought to refute something that was said about them personally. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander — not that that expression is any reflection on the Deputy First Minister.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. This gander will conclude on this note. I quote exactly:
"If, however, it was misguidedly attempted, neither our party nor I as Deputy First Minister would confer any compliance, support or credibility on such a blatant contravention of the Agreement."
Mr McCartney, over to you.


Oh no. I have it here.


Members will know very well that aids and accompaniments are not acceptable in the Chamber. I hope that all Members, however distinguished, will observe that.


Mr Speaker.


Order. A matter was raised earlier today with regard to what recourse would be taken when Standing Orders were not sufficient. There seemed to be some uncertainty. Therefore I refer the House to the ruling I made on Monday 14 December 1998:
"I intend to use Erskine May for guidance on matters which arise during business in the Assembly or other matters where I am asked to give a ruling and where the Initial Standing Orders and the draft Standing Orders are not clear or are insufficient."
I had assumed that Members would understand that the same would apply when we moved to our own Standing Orders. When Standing Orders are not clear, or are insufficient, I will have recourse to Erskine May, except in the very exceptional circumstances where Erskine May would be in conflict with our Standing Orders. When Standing Orders are inadequate, or when they are entirely silent, I will use Erskine May, as I said on 14 December 1998.


SDLP take note.


Order.


My accuracy was called into question by the Deputy First Minister. I obtained a proof copy of what he said, which was entirely consistent with the remarks I had made in the House. I have it here. I was aware that it would not be a point of order to do exactly what you permitted the Deputy First Minister to do. You acknowledged that it was not a point of order, but you let him make it. Knowing you to be a person of probity and equity, I have to say that the same right to breach — if that is what it was — a point of order, or question, should be extended to me briefly as was extended to the Deputy First Minister.


Order. It is clearly not a time for an exposé of the rightness or otherwise — [Interruption].


But you permitted it.


Order.


You permitted it.


Order. The matter was raised by the Member in question. He chose to make a remark about what another Member had said. He made his remark from certain proofs — so be it. The Member has asked for an opportunity to respond. Other Members have, at times, asked for opportunities to respond when their integrity has been called into question by a particular reference. The Deputy First Minister took such an opportunity. It is inappropriate now to engage in a toing and froing, but if the Members wish to exchange papers which demonstrate something, that is another matter. If the substance of this question is a matter of earnest debate, it should properly be debated in the form of a motion.


Mr Speaker, I endorse what you have said. However, you yourself indicated that the Deputy First Minister’s response was not a point of order — and he did rise on a point of order; in fact that was his opening gambit — yet you chose to allow it. You justified your decision on the basis that the Deputy First Minister was responding to something that had called his accuracy into question, yet you deny me the same opportunity to respond.


Order. The Member does not seem to be aware —


I am very aware.


—that he is running perilously close to questioning the integrity of the Speaker, in which case he would be wholly out of order. The Deputy First Minister asked for an opportunity to respond in the form of a point of order, but, as I indicated, that was an incorrect term to use. His was a statement in response to the question that had been asked, and I permitted it. That is for the Speaker to do, as the Member knows very well.


With equity and fairness.


I am grateful for your kind remarks in that regard.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


Dr Paisley, you have already had one point of order. My generosity knows no bounds, so I will allow you to make one further point. This must be the last one.


I view with seriousness, Mr Speaker, your challenge to a Member that he was moving into very serious territory just because he tried to defend himself. He was not moving so, and he did pay tribute to your integrity. He is entitled to respond to the Member’s comment that he did not say something which he did, in fact, say.


Order. A Member is not entitled to question a ruling from the Speaker, as Dr Paisley, who is probably the most experienced parliamentarian in this Chamber, knows well. I hold by the ruling that I have given. [Interruption].
Order. If Members wish to have a conversation, they are entirely entitled to do so, but they should have it in the Lobby so that others, who want to observe the conversation, will know where it is taking place.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Regional Development
Urban Clearways: Control Zones

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his plans to alter the timings attributed to control zones on urban clearways.
(AQO960/00)


I have no plans at present to alter the operation times of urban clearways that are designated under road traffic legislation. My Department’s Roads Service, in conjunction with the police, carries out periodic reviews of these times to ensure that they are consistent with traffic management requirements.


Is the Minister aware that serious traffic congestion occurs in urban clearways outside the current timings, particularly on Friday afternoons before 4.30 pm? That seriously impedes the journey home for many commuters. Will the Minister consider extending the timings to relieve that situation?


There has to be a balance between the benefits that waiting restrictions bring to traffic movement and the inconvenience for those who wish to park for access to shops, and so on. That is an operational decision for the Roads Service. Officials periodically review clearway times with the RUC, which has responsibility for enforcement. If any Member has a query about a particular location he may take the matter up with the divisional roads manager in the relevant division. In Mrs Bell’s case that is the eastern division. If subsequent to that there is still dissatisfaction I will look at the individual case.

Public Transport (Rural Areas)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to review public transport services in rural areas; and to make a statement.
(AQO989/00)


Public transport services in rural areas will be considered during the development of the 10-year regional transportation strategy. In addition, and as part of my Department’s obligations under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, an equality impact assessment of the strategic planning and operational management of the bus and rail network — including that in rural areas — is planned for 2001-02.
There have already been recent substantial improvements to public transport facilities serving district towns and their rural hinterlands. New bus stations have opened in Newry and Armagh, and combined bus and rail centres will open soon in Bangor and Coleraine. Construction of a new bus station in Magherafelt is underway, and work on a new bus station in Antrim is expected to begin in the next financial year. Translink is also keen to construct a new bus station in Downpatrick.
The Department for Regional Development also administers the rural transport fund for Northern Ireland which provides around £1·3 million annually to support community-based transport schemes, additional rural bus services and research into rural transport needs.


I thank the Minister for his answer, and may I ask him to thank his officials for consulting me on my question during the week. He will not be surprised by my asking him to consider a number of other imaginative schemes that will apply existing resources to supporting transport services in rural areas. Specifically, I am asking about the pilot projects that have been undertaken in Britain and parts of Northern Ireland to use the postal services to help provide transport for the elderly and vulnerable in particular. Will the Minister look at the possibility of utilising the fleet of education and library board buses that are all over Northern Ireland and which have qualified drivers? Those buses lie redundant for most of the summer and every evening.


The post buses to which the hon Member refers are minibus-type vehicles that are owned and operated by the Post Office. Not only do they deliver mail, but they also provide transport for fare- paying passengers in local areas. They are more prevalent in Scotland. However, the Post Office currently operates extremely limited services in Fermanagh. Officials from the Department for Regional Development have had discussions with the Post Office about extending post-bus services in Northern Ireland with funding from the rural transport fund. The Post Office has not yet taken up the offer of support. I would be prepared to re-examine the possible extension of post-bus services.
The issue of education and library board buses is one that I will need to discuss with other Departments. Rural bus services are frequently — almost invariably — uneconomic and are subsidised by profit from urban services. Unfortunately, the Department for Regional Development does not have the resources to subsidise rural bus services, whether provided by Translink or by education and library boards. However, I am prepared to have discussions about the possibility of extension.


There are already some public transport schemes in the Province, including one in my constituency of Strangford. Will these schemes, which were in the past partially funded by Europe and by Government Departments, continue in the future? Will similar schemes be initiated to provide public transport in areas of the Province which at present do not have adequate coverage?


As I have not had notice of the supplementary question, I am unable to respond immediately to it. However, I will undertake research to find out whether I can give an assurance that those services can continue. These issues will be considered under the regional transportation strategy. The consultation period for that strategy began in January2001 and will end in the middle of this month. The strategy will be brought before the Assembly in the autumn. All these matters will be up for consideration as part of that strategy, but I will undertake to obtain the information that the Member has asked for and to respond to him in writing.


I thank the Minister for his warm and generous consideration of those living in rural areas and their need for transport services. I ask him to give the same consideration to my constituents in Glenavy and Ballinderry, and also my neighbouring constituents in Crumlin, when he considers the possible "mothballing" — I think that that is the term that has been used — of the railway line. With his generosity and his recognition for those living in rural areas, it would be incomprehensible if the Minister were to consider mothballing this facility, in view of the hardship that those people would suffer.


I thank the Member for the supplementary question and the ingenuity with which he brought it to bear on the Floor of the House. I have met four separate delegations on this matter. The consultation period for the Antrim-Knockmore line closed at the weekend. Last weekend there was a considerable response to the advertising of the possible mothballing of the line.
I was acutely aware before the advertising of the consultation period closed, and am even more so now, that I am in receipt of a considerable volume of objections to the closure of the line. I will give sympathetic consideration to everyone who comes to see me about the line. I hope and expect — and this is without prejudice to whatever the final outcome may be — that, if the points made by all those objectors and by the hon Member are of such validity that I decide to retain the line, I will get the funding from the Assembly to allow me to keep it open.

Housing Schemes: Roads and Services

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give his assessment of the time taken by developers to complete housing schemes in bringing roads and services up to the required standard, thus enabling them to be adopted by his Department.
(AQO1019/00)


In the case of private streets which have been determined through the planning process, it is the responsibility of developers to bring roads and sewers up to the required standard for adoption by the Department for Regional Development. Where such roads and sewers are provided to the prescribed standards, they are adopted promptly. Progress of developments in general is related to many varied factors and, regrettably, can sometimes be much slower than is desirable.
Where satisfactory completion of roads is not effected within a reasonable period from the date of completion of dwellings, my Department has powers under the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, as amended, to enable it to complete the necessary work at the developer’s expense. Such action is normally only initiated after efforts to persuade developers to meet their obligations have not been successful, with each case carefully considered on its merits.


Does the Minister accept that almost 20 years is an unacceptably long period to wait before roads and services are brought up to standard and adopted in a new development, such as Prospect in Carrickfergus? Will the Minister ensure that, in future, developers’ bonds are accessed, using the article 11 procedure, at a much earlier stage in order to ensure that roads and sewerage in a private development are brought up to standard? Does he agree that there are unacceptably large numbers of unadopted roads in the Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey areas?


The Member referred to Carrickfergus and the East Antrim area. Roads Service informs me that there are approximately 60 developments, representing an estimated 130 bonded sites, around Carrickfergus. Roads Service is working with the developers to bring these sites to adoption standards as quickly as possible.
The hon Member referred to Carrickfergus in particular, and I should inform him that notices under article 11 of the 1980 Order were issued on 15 February, giving a particular developer 28 days — the minimum allowed under the Order — to commence necessary remedial work.

Road Defects: Public Liability Claims

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his Department’s expenditure during the last financial year on public liability claims arising out of defects on public roads.
(AQO1008/00)


Expenditure on public liability claims peaked in the mid-1980s at £6 million. Claims arising out of defects on public roads in 1999-2000 were in the region of £3·4 million. The reduction has been brought about by the introduction of the Central Claims Unit and the improvement in road maintenance systems. Obviously, one of the difficulties is the current level of expenditure on road maintenance, which I have continually said is half of what is required.


Following the recent publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on Roads Service management of street works in Northern Ireland, the Minister announced measures to ensure that utilities reinstated roads properly after digging them up. We all have experience of roads needing repairs just days or weeks after works are completed. Can the Minister assure me that roads are inspected immediately after work is completed and that appropriate action will be taken?


I share the Member’s concern over issues arising out of the Audit Office report. I have written to all the utilities concerned and I hope to meet with senior representatives of those utilities in the near future in order to establish the exact point that he raised. People have a right to expect that these utilities — which by law are able to enter the road surface to lay cables — ensure that the maintenance and relaying of a road’s surface is to the same standard as it would have been if they were not there. I am determined that that will be the case.


My question is rather similar. Does the Minister agree that when his Department complies with the report’s recommendations, public liability claims should be substantially reduced?


I hope that that will be the case. It is certainly my intention that it should be. The more we can encourage utilities to do what is both their moral obligation and their legal obligation, the more likely we are to see a reduction in the number of claims. The forthcoming meeting that I intend to have with the utilities will maintain that specific objective in mind.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There have been recent allegations in the Foyle constituency of surplus maintenance that has been nothing short of archaeological digs. Owing to the lack of co-operation between the Roads Service and the Water Service, some streets and roads have been dug up no less than five or six times during one programme of surface maintenance. Can the Minister tell us how the management of those programmes could be better directed?


I want to ensure that any difficulties arising out of an alleged lack of co-operation are not repeated. The indications in recent months have been that co-operation has improved considerably. Nonetheless, if there are signs that a lack of co-operation is at the core of a difficulty in terms of surface maintenance, I will endeavour to ensure that it does not happen again and will have the necessary officials investigate the matter and respond to the questioner.

Roads (Moyle District) and Frosses Road (A26)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans for upgrading the road infrastructure in the Moyle Council area and, in particular, the fourth phase of dual carriageway on the A26 Frosses Road from Glarryford to Ballymoney.
(AQO980/00)


The Roads Service is considering proposals to dual the section of the A26 between Glarryford and the Ballycastle junction. The proposed scheme, which is estimated to cost some £16 million, is currently being assessed for possible inclusion in the 10-year forward planning schedule. However, there are many schemes competing for inclusion, and the size of the schedule will depend on the overall funding that is available. I hope to announce details of the forward planning schedule later this year. In the Moyle Council area, there is also a continuing programme of minor works schemes.


I welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the A26. Does he accept the imperative for an adequate access route into the Moyle and Causeway coast area? The present thoroughfare is not conducive to desperately needed economic development in that area.


The short answer is "Yes". If the question were posed by any one of a number of Members, the answer would be the same. There are a number of schemes under way in relation to the Moyle area that should be of some benefit. For example, a one-mile southbound climbing lane on the section of the road between Newbuildings junction at the southern end of the Ballymoney bypass and Glenlough Road. That is estimated to cost £500,000 and is currently under way. Improvements at the Portrush Road roundabout at Ballymoney, involving the construction of differential acceleration lanes on both main road exits from the roundabout to allow the safe overtaking of slow-moving vehicles away from the roundabout, will be carried out shortly at an estimated cost of £180,000. These are indications of the importance that Roads Service attaches to the road network in the north coast area.

Antrim-Knockmore Railway

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the level of subsidy provided by his Department to operate the Antrim-Knockmore railway line.
(AQO953/00)


The Department for Regional Department provides Translink with an annual subsidy to meet the deficit it incurs in operating railway services in Northern Ireland. The Department expects to pay about £12 million to Translink in the current financial year. However, the subsidy is not route-specific. Therefore there is no information available as to the level of subsidy that is required to operate the Antrim-Knockmore section of the Londonderry-Belfast route.
In the light of the proposal to close the Antrim to Knockmore line, I accept that we must obtain the best estimate of how much subsidy would be required to continue to operate services on this line in addition to providing a service from Antrim to Belfast via Bleach Green. My Department has asked Translink to provide this information.


When will the Minister be in a position to tell us how much money the Department believes may be allocated in subsidy for this line? Will the Department, in arriving at its conclusion, take into account the subsidy for the replacement bus service, together with the fact that fewer people would use that service?


On 23 February my Department received an economic appraisal for the retention of the Antrim to Knockmore line. That contains a considerable amount of useful information, but it does not tell us how much it would cost to keep the line open until major work is required. We have asked Translink for that additional information. The economic appraisal says that major work on the track will be required in about three years’ time. The estimated cost is approximately £12 million.
At this point, I will repeat what I have said in response to the many representations which have been made to me about the line: I want the line to remain open, and I know that many Members share my view. However, we must face up to the fact that it will cost money to keep it operational, even in the three years before the major work is required. The net running costs of the bus substitution service to which the Member referred are likely to be much lower than the cost of maintaining the train service. My Department has asked Translink for its best estimate of the net running cost of the train service.


Has the Minister considered the implications for the Belfast Area Plan of this proposal to close the Antrim to Knockmore line, particularly in the light of the proposed location of 20,000 new houses along this public transport route? As an interim measure, is he prepared to consider the provision of a light railway shuttle service on that line instead of the proposed bus service?


Unfortunately, there is no short, simple and obvious answer to the Member’s question nor to the analysis underlying it. I am prepared to look at any option that will assist in keeping the line open. Several options have been placed before me, and I am examining each one. We were told that Irish Rail had spare rolling stock. Approaches were made about this, but it emerged that no such stock is available. There have been indications that Translink might be able to get rolling stock from Great Britain, which might be suitable after modification for our gauge. So far, however, that venture has proved unsuccessful. It is likely to be towards the end of 2003 before Translink can acquire new trains.
I am prepared to examine all options to try to keep the line open.

Saintfield Road (Belfast): Traffic Congestion

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his plans to relieve traffic congestion on the Saintfield Road approach to Belfast.
(AQO983/00)


As I explained during the Adjournment debate on 3 October 2000, my Department is endeavouring to tackle this problem by several means.
First, we introduced Belfast’s first quality bus corridor in late June 2000. Secondly, we intend providing a park-and-ride facility at Cairnshill. This is dependent on planning approval and the availability of the necessary land and resources. Finally, we are giving due consideration to the provision of a dedicated busway, a "superroute" between Cairnshill and the city centre. This is a potential long-term project and Translink, in conjunction with my Department, has commissioned consultants to evaluate the merits and environmental impacts of alternative alignments for the busway.
The thrust of each of these measures is towards developing alternative modes of transport. In this context consultants are due to be appointed shortly to carry out a study and help produce a Belfast metropolitan transport plan. This study will include proposals for the city centre and transport corridors, including the southern approaches, and it will be carried out in conjunction with the preparation of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, which has recently commenced.


I thank the Minister for his response. Can he comment further on the likely time frame involved in alleviating the situation on the ground, given the fact that there are already more than 30,000 cars using this route on a weekly basis?


I assure the Member and the House that Roads Service is continuing to monitor and review traffic conditions on the Saintfield Road and to identify the nature and location of additional safety measures that might be employed along that important arterial route. Roads Service is also investigating other measures that can assist in dealing with the increasing level and volume of traffic on what is, I accept, a very busy and important arterial route into Belfast city centre. We are looking at a number of options and would be prepared to consider in the foreseeable future other choices that would materialise once the bus corridors and the other aspects that I have outlined have been operational for a time.

Roads (Hannahstown and Glenavy)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans to upgrade the roads in the Hannahstown and Glenavy areas.
(AQO961/00)


My Department’s Roads Service has no current plans to upgrade roads in the Hannahstown and Glenavy areas, although consideration is being given to resurfacing the Upper Springfield Road and the A26 Moira Road between Glenavy and Ballinderry Upper within the next two years.


I thank the Minister for his reply. I want to draw attention to the Hannahstown area, particularly the hairpin bend down to the top of Hannahstown Hill and the repairs that are needed there due to the horrendous state of the road. Since last October I have been asking the Minister’s Department for an answer to a letter I sent about this matter, and, despite numerous reminders, I have still had no reply.
How does the Minister’s Department prioritise the resurfacing or upgrading of roads in the first place, and what consultation, if any, is there between you or your Department and the local community in considering their needs or priorities?


Minister, I advise you that you have only some 20 seconds to respond.


I will write to the hon Member, but I am aware of a recent protest in relation to the surface of the road. I will undertake to establish why there has not been a response to the Member’s letter, if that is the case, and will write to the hon Member accordingly.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 19(7). Why does MsLewsley have to wait for a written answer? There were two questions earlier — one was a supplementary to John Fee’s, and it definitely was not a supplementary question under that Standing Order.
The other was by MrsNelis in relation to question4. Both were additional questions. If we continue to use this practice, other Members who are waiting will not have their questions answered. People have taken time to submit written questions for oral answer. We should respect that and not allow others to ask irrelevant questions.


I thank the Member for that point of order. Some Members use very imaginative methods to ask supplementary questions in order to get their point across. That point is noted.


Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, surely if Members are asking questions, which, to use your own word, are "imaginative" to get their points across, it is your responsibility to decide whether the question is in order. By your own admission, it seems that you noticed a couple of questions that were not in order yet you permitted them.


The questions were in order. When I said "imaginative ways" I was describing the means by which Members link their supplementary questions to the main question that has been asked. That is why the supplementaries were not out of order.

The Environment
Planning: Multiple-Occupation Housing

1. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail planning restrictions on the approval of houses of multiple occupation to avoid causing destruction to local communities.
(AQO942/00)


That is a complex area of planning law. Multiple occupancy is regarded as a house that is occupied by persons who do not form a single household. Permitted development currently allows up to six people, who may not be related, to share accommodation without having to submit a planning application. Student and nursing accommodation typically falls into that category, as do households in which groups of people in need of care live together. It is regarded as a material change of use when accommodation is subdivided into discrete living units, and in those circumstances planning permission is required. The main criterion against which such applications are judged is the exisitng amenity of the area.


It is not just the amenity of the area that concerns me. Is the Minister aware of the character change to a community that can occur when an overabundance of houses of multiple occupation is allowed? Does he agree that his Department has a responsibility to preserve a community’s character? Whatever happened in the past, what plans does he have to ensure that it does not happen in the future?


I am aware of the problems that seem to be arising around the coastline insofar as apartment development is concerned, especially in seaside towns such as Newcastle. My Department is addressing the issue in two ways. The Department is finalising, after public consultation, a planning policy statement titled ‘Quality Residential Developments’. That will provide a policy context against which proposals for housing development on greenfield lands and in existing urban areas can be considered, including the relationship with existing development.
The Department is also preparing for consultation supplementary planning guidance in the form of a development control advice note. That will give guidance specifically related to proposals for small-unit housing in existing residential areas. I hope to publish both documents in the spring. I understand that the Department for Regional Development will also prepare a regional planning policy statement titled ‘Housing In Settlements’, which will also provide guidance on the matter. I am aware of the problems that have arisen. We are sensitive to the issue and shall look at it where we can.

Buildings of Architectural or Historic Importance

2. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his policy on the preservation of buildings of architectural merit and historic interest that are not listed.
(AQO958/00)


Policy on the preservation of unlisted buildings of architectural merit and historic interest is set out in my Department’s planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, which was published in March1999. A copy of that statement is available in the Assembly Library. It refers to buildings of architectural merit and historic interest situated in conservation areas, in areas of townscape or village character and in local landscape policy areas.
It also sets out policies for the control of new developments, demolition or advertisements in a conservation area. In particular, in conservation areas, the Department favours the retention of any building that positively contributions to the character or appearance of the area. The statement also includes a policy that encourages the sympathetic reuse and renovation of non-listed vernacular buildings in recognition of the importance of such buildings to our heritage and regional identity.
We are also considering proposals to strengthen enforcement powers in that area. Those proposals are being considered for inclusion in a Bill to amend planning legislation, which I hope to introduce in the Assembly in the next session. The Member will also be aware that my Department recently declared five new conservation areas in Belfast to protect existing buildings of character from unregulated demolition. Those were previously declared areas of townscape character in the 1990s.


I thank the Minister for his response, but does he not agree that there is a need to look at the whole question of listing buildings of historic and architectural merit? That applies not only to those buildings in the conservation areas but to those outside, bearing in mind the issues of the previous question, and to the number of large houses that are being demolished to make way for new apartment blocks.


The second survey of all historic buildings in Northern Ireland has been under way for almost fouryears. That comprehensive survey considers the interior, exterior and history of each building and evaluates it against the criteria for listing. We are aware of the situation that prevails at this time. My Department and I recognise that the demolition and redevelopment of some houses that are not listed can have a detrimental effect on the character and quality of existing residential environments. That is especially the case when large detached residences are demolished to make way for town houses and apartment blocks, and the housing density is significantly increased. The use of conservation areas to protect buildings is a developing policy. If that approach is successful in Belfast it could be used in other parts of Northern Ireland. Demolition is also one of the areas that is being considered for the forthcoming Bill.


Does the Minister agree that it is a matter of extreme urgency that townscapes be extended beyond the Belfast metropolitan area to take in places such as Carrickfergus where historic buildings are in danger of immediate demolition? Does the Minister also agree that the appearance of apartments and town houses in the Newtownabbey area represents a serious threat to the townscape character already there and that stronger provisions are needed urgently?


My officials in the Planning Service and in the Environment and Heritage Service work together to identify and delineate those areas. I am aware of the issues, and I encourage those who are concerned about their local built environment to take advantage of the opportunities being provided to comment on local plans. They can do that by writing to the relevant planning teams about locally treasured buildings and places. I am aware of the problems in the Newtownabbey area — MrRobinson has referred them to me before. We take those concerns seriously and are looking into the issues. I am also aware of an application for development and listed building consent to demolish Governor’s Place in Carrickfergus. Those applications were received on 22December2000, and they are at an early stage of consideration.


The Minister has dealt with part of my question, and several other Members have asked about similar concerns. Is the Minister aware that, as we speak, buildings of architectural merit in Portrush are being demolished systematically by speculators that need the ground for apartments? Does he agree that the policies that exist are totally inadequate to deal with the problem?


I advise the Member that, as he suggested, that question has already been put to the Minister and he has responded to those issues. The only difference is in the location. Does the Minister wish to respond or does he wish to move on?


I am aware of the situation to which the Member refers. We are concerned when such things happen, and we shall take it into consideration when we try to do something about it. I assure the Member that those matters do not go unnoticed.

Taxis

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail when he expects to introduce legislation governing the use of public and private hire taxis.
(AQO982/00)


At present, I have no plans to amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which governs the licensing of drivers of public and private hire taxis and their vehicles in Northern Ireland. In the longer term it would be valuable to bring the legislation up to date.
However, my bid for additional resources to do so in the 2001-02 Budget was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, I shall continue to consider how the situation might be addressed within my Department’s existing resources and priorities.
I recently met representatives of the Belfast Public Hire Taxi Association, together with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Assembly’s Environment Committee. Although I am unable to hold out the prospect of early legislation on taxi licensing, I have asked my officials to do all that they can to address the taxi drivers’ concerns under existing legislation.
My Deparment also sets the fares to be charged by public hire taxis in Belfast under by-laws. Shortly, I intend to propose amendments to the by-laws to increase those fares, which were last increased in 1996.


As the Minister will be aware, the existing legislation is some 50years old and, as a result, is totally inadequate. What does the Minister intend to do about the legislation, as he will, I am sure, be aware that there have been instances in which individual taxi drivers have been persecuted, victimised and demonised? Does he agree that that is a totally inadequate situation?


I ask Members and the Minister to be concise in their questions and answers.


After devolution, regulation of the taxi industry, including any proposals for fundamental changes, is now my Department’s responsibility, as we are all aware. As I stated in my earlier answer, a wider review of the current legislation governing the taxi industry would be valuable.
However, my Department is also required to ensure that members of the public can travel without unnecessary risk. It must therefore be satisfied that licences are granted only to persons who meet the requirements of repute.
In determining repute, the Department takes account of convictions, as confirmed by the RUC Criminal Records Office, against a set of guidelines that categorise convictions as serious or minor. That is an important issue that we are looking into, and we must ensure that we safeguard the public.


In many ways, the Minister has responded to my question. We are all aware of the number of people who use their cars illegally, and the amount of distress that that causes. It causes much distress in my area.
Perhaps part of the problem is that people who should not be driving are being allowed to do so. I hope that when the Minister amends the legislation it addresses all criminal activity in the taxi industry.


I shall move on because the Member has admitted that her question has been answered.


Can the Minister give an assurance that people with criminal convictions will not be eligible for taxi licences in the future?


I would be failing in my duty to protect the public if I were to allow those convicted of murder or serious sexual offences to be granted taxi licences. The criteria do not attempt to take account of the motives of ex-offenders, and I do not propose to change that policy. It is open to the courts, on appeal, to take into account all the circumstances of a case.

Animal Waste: Environmental Damage

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the steps he is taking to reduce the risk of damage to the environment caused by animal waste.
(AQO985/00)


I refer the Member to AQO719/00, which I answered on 5February2001, as is recorded in the Official Report for that day. That answer set out in detail the arrangements to prevent and police pollution incidents, including those caused by farms.
My answer also set out the significant increase in the number of staff devoted to that work over recent years. It also described the further increases in staff planned from the additional resources that I obtained in the Budget for next year, together with additional regulatory receipts. Headquarters staff on pollution prevention and response will increase from three to nine, and the number of staff in the water quality unit of the Environment and Heritage Service will increase from 44 to 77.
I also plan to strengthen the statutory regime for controlling animal waste. The Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 enables my Department to make regulations to control the storage of slurry, silage and fuel oils on farms. The Order also gives my Department increased powers to serve works notices that require farmers to take remedial action to stop or prevent pollution. That is detailed because I have been asked to give detail.
The Environment and Heritage Service takes vigorous action against polluters, including the instigation of prosecution proceedings when the circumstances warrant it. For serious pollution incidents, including fish kills, prosecutions will be expected to follow if the perpetrators can be identified.
However, the 1999 Order cannot come into operation until a commencement Order has been made. That in turn must wait for other enabling Regulations that were the subject of recent public consultation. My Department expects to be able to bring the 1999 Order into operation in the next two months and to have the new Regulations in place later this year.
Agricultural waste, which generally includes animal waste, is not controlled waste under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. It is not, therefore, covered by the Northern Ireland waste management strategy that my Department published last March. However, we intend to bring agricultural waste under the controlled regime. My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are working together to develop an agricultural waste strategy to be incorporated into the overall Northern Ireland waste management strategy at its first review in 2002.


Mr Kane, there was a great deal of detail in that response. Do you require a supplementary question?


I accept some of the Minister’s response, but I was speaking about the disposal of animal by-product waste at landfill sites and his Department’s responsibility for possible human infection from material at those sites. The risk of BSE infection to humans from specified waste materials that are put into landfill sites — [Interruption].


Was there a question?


No.


I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging answer. Do his proposals to increase, in particular, the policing and regulation of farm sewage place greater pressure on farms while we ourselves do not revise our thinking on how we should deal with the problem?
Does the Minister agree that if he acted in concert with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who expressed an interest this morning in renewable energy resources, the matter could be approached proactively? They could do that by encouraging the building of anaerobic digesters, which would both recycle farm sewage in an environmentally friendly way and produce energy from a renewable resource.


The Environment and Heritage Service is actively engaged in pollution prevention measures. Through co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Countryside Management Division, it helps to target farm assessments and assists in the preparation of codes of good agricultural practice. All farmers who are prosecuted for causing pollution are offered a free advisory visit by staff from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
My Department has no direct responsibility for the disposal of fallen animals or incinerated carcasses. However, my officials will stay in touch with their counterparts in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to ensure that the arrangements for the burial of carcasses or incinerated remains pose no risk of pollution to rivers or ground waters.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Animal by-products from slaughter, such as stomach and gut contents and blood, can be spread on land where that practice is considered beneficial to the soil. Regulations require landowners to notify district councils where "land spreading" takes place. To prevent environment contamination and animal health risks, that practice is subject to control under the animal by-products Regulations enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Blood certified as being free from disease by veterinary officers at the time of slaughter poses no risk and is therefore exempt under the Regulations. All waste from abattoirs has been directed to suitable licensed and risk-assessed landfill sites because of foot-and-mouth disease, and advice has been issued to district councils.

Area Plans

5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the current situation in implementing area plans across Northern Ireland.
(AQO990/00)


The Department’s development plan programme, which is reviewed and rolled forward annually, is published in Planning Service’s corporate and business plans.
The objective of the programme is to provide development plan coverage for all district council areas in Northern Ireland by 2005. The current position is as follows: area plans for the districts of Antrim, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Larne, Armagh, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Moyle, Derry, Limavady, Omagh, Strabane and Fermanagh were adopted and are being implemented; the Lisburn area plan is scheduled for adoption before the summer; the Cookstown area plan has been the subject of a public inquiry, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission are awaited, and draft development plans have been published for the Craigavon and Dungannon districts, and public inquiries will be held during 2001-02.
As the programme progresses, several plans, including some of those referred to, will need to be replaced. Therefore, a replacement programme is also under way. Replacement area plans are in preparation for the Newry and Mourne and Banbridge districts, the Ards and Down districts and the Magherafelt district. They are also being prepared for the six districts — Belfast, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and north Down — that comprise the Belfast metropolitan area plan. Work is scheduled to begin during 2001-02 on replacement plans for the Coleraine, Ballymoney, Limavady, Moyle, Antrim, Ballymena and Larne districts. Work on the three remaining districts of Armagh, Omagh and Strabane to complete up-to-date area plan coverage is scheduled to begin in 2002-03.


The Member may now understand the danger of putting terms such as "detail the current situation" into his questions. Sometimes one gets what one asks for.


Does the Department of the Environment have adequate resources to ensure that area plans are properly implemented in Northern Ireland? Can the Minister tell the House the number of article 31 applications that are before planners in Northern Ireland at present? What impact will those applications have on the implementation of area plans across the Province?


I cannot tell the Member the number of article 31 applications that are with planners at present, but I shall provide him with a written reply. I am generally satisfied that the resources are available — so far as one can be absolute about anything— to my Department to meet the target date of 2005, subject to the normal consultation process. Although I recognise the pressures of statutory consultees, I expect that they will recognise the importance of area plans and allocate resources as necessary.


Does the Minister agree that the implementation of area plans across Northern Ireland may be complicated, if not compromised, by the uncertainty regarding future structures of local government and that that uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible?


That is an imponderable question. The area plans can run concurrently with whatever is decided in future under the public administration review. I cannot give the Member an answer to that. I cannot be absolute about it, but I can assure him that there is nothing wrong with working on the strategy at the moment.


Is the Minister satisfied that progress towards the goal of having all areas covered by 2005 is achievable?


I refer my Colleague to my earlier answer.
I am generally satisfied that the resources that my Department will need to meet the target date of 2005 — subject to the normal consultation process — are available. I cannot be absolute about it. We are working towards 2005.

Planning Applications (Kircubbin Area)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment to explain how two planning applications have been approved by the Planning Service while other applications have been deferred until the new Kircubbin sewage treatment works has been provided.
(AQO978/00)


Several planning applications have been held pending a decision on the future development of the Kircubbin sewage treatment works. On 13 February 2001, Planning Service consulted Ards Borough Council with a preliminary opinion to approve two related applications. One of those related to the refurbishment of an existing building. Water Service had no objection to that development on the grounds that there would be no additional discharge.
The second proposal concerned apartment development, and the recommendation to approve was made in error. This error was discovered by Planning Service and did not result in a formal approval’s being issued.
Water Service has recently advised that the design of the new sewage works for Kircubbin is at an advanced stage, and work is programmed to commence on site in autumn 2001, subject to planning permission. Although Water Service’s position remains that no additional discharge can be accepted because of overloading of the existing works, it has stated that it will not oppose planning applications, provided developers are prepared to phase construction to coincide with the completion of the sewage works. In light of that information, planning applications that currently stand deferred by Ards Borough Council until the new Kircubbin sewage treatment works has been provided will now be considered.


Will the Minister acknowledge the very bitter concern of local applicants who have consistently been refused planning permission? There is currently a wait of up to five years until the new sewage treatment facility is provided. Along comes an application for apartments, which has just been mentioned, and — hey presto! — the decision from the planning people is "OK". There is no problem and no mention of sewerage. The local community is furious.
Will the Minister assure the Assembly that his Department will fulfil its obligations in relation to planning applications throughout Northern Ireland on a consistent, fair and equitable basis, and one that would not give rise to any kind of suspicions?


The Member used the word "suspicions". I do not accept that the planning people are inconsistent. I know that there are problems and difficulties, but I can assure the House that no planning application goes through without deep thought and rigorous assessment. I cannot accept what the Member has just said. I assure him that we view the situation in a pedantic and consistent way. We look at the infrastructures surrounding all applications, and each application is taken on its own particular merits.


I am curious to hear to which part of Kircubbin sewage treatment works Mr Roy Beggs wishes to refer.


Does the Minister agree that it would be environmentally irresponsible for Planning Service to continue to grant planning approval for all new developments, knowing that pollution of the environment would result if the sewage treatment works is already overloaded, as it is in parts of my constituency? Will he take into consideration the views of the Environment and Heritage Service on the ability of the local sewage treatment works to cope when he considers new planning applications that would potentially further overload the local capacity?


I can assure Mr Beggs that we take all those issues into consideration. We must ensure that the works are not overloaded and that the infrastructure is in place to take the development. I assure him that we shall not take the matter lightly.


Is the Minister aware that the planning schedule for Tuesday week will confirm that all four outstanding applications for Kircubbin will be lodged with Ards Borough Council and will all be coming forward for approval? Can he state why that has happened? Is it because of the controversy made known to Ards Borough Council by the people of the area, or is it because the Department has not been doing its job correctly?


I understand that four applications have been deferred by Ards Borough Council. My Department will now consider those as a matter of urgency. I wish to emphasise again that we do not take those matters lightly. I would not accept that in my Planning Service. It is not inconsistent; it does not operate in a willy-nilly way.
My Department is not able to review applications that have already been refused on the grounds that the sewage works was overloaded. However, there is nothing to prevent someone submitting a new application for consideration, where people may feel aggrieved. I assure the Member, and this House, that my Planning Service does not take issues lightly.

EU Landfill Directive

7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his plans to introduce legislation for the implementation of the European Union Landfill Directive.
(AQO959/00)


The Landfill Directive aims to prevent or reduce as far as possible the negative effects on the environment, as well as any risk to human health, from the landfilling of wastes. A key feature of the Directive is the reduction of methane emissions from landfill sites. It imposes progressive targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled, eventually reducing to 35% of the 1995 baseline levels.
The target for achieving that reduction is 2020, provided that advantage is taken of the four-year derogation available under the Directive. The percentage reductions required by the Directive are built into the Northern Ireland waste management strategy that was published by the Department of the Environment in March 2000.
In consultation with other parts of the United Kingdom, my Department is considering options for ensuring that those targets are met in Northern Ireland. I hope to consult widely on those issues later this year.
The remainder of the Directive is concerned with achieving common standards for the design, operation and aftercare of landfill sites. I shall be consulting on the proposal for implementing those aspects of the Directive as soon as possible after the consultation on biodegradable municipal waste.
Plans to introduce legislation to implement the Directive must await the outcome of those consultations. The additional resources that I have obtained in the Budget for 2001-02 will, however, help progress. Those resources will enable me to meet the commitment in the Programme for Government to progressively eliminate the backlog in transposing and implementing EU Directives.


Mr Ford, you have 20 seconds to put your question, and the Minister will then be likely to have to write to you.


I am disappointed, Mr Speaker, to hear that there is no definite timescale for the legislation. I had hoped that the Minister could have been a little more specific. Is he satisfied with the current movement on targets towards recycling and reuse? Is he also aware of the major public concern over the incineration question, which also needs to be addressed?


I am afraid that the time for questions to the Ministers is up. I have not been in the Chair, but I observe that we have barely reached question7. Without attributing that to anything in particular, I do feel that on productivity grounds, no particularly good use has been made of that time. I appeal to Members who have to take the Floor to be as concise as possible.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you referring to the responses by Ministers? That is what stretches out the time; that is where the problem lies.


As I said, I attribute my remarks to no one in particular. My remarks were meant as a caution to all Members who take the Floor.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Question 10, standing in the name of Mr David Ford, has been transferred to the Department for Social Development and will receive a written response. Question 4, in the name of Mr Roy Beggs, has been withdrawn.

Commission/Strategy for Children

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what contact have they had with representatives of children’s groups regarding the creation of a consultation paper on a commissioner for children/strategy for children.
(AQO1000/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: We recognise the need to draw on the experience and expertise of organisations who work with children and represent their needs.
The Deputy First Minister and I had a meeting with a number of such organisations on 20 February. They included Save the Children, Barnardos, Children’s Law Centre, the Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association, Parents Advice Centre, Playboard, Putting Children First, Voice of Young People in Care, and Childcare International (Northern Ireland). The meeting was very positive, and we look forward to continuing to work in partnership with children’s organisations in developing our proposals.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: From speaking to a number of the organisations mentioned, I know that they found the consultation exercise very positive at this stage. Can the First Minister outline how the inclusion of representatives of those children’s organisations will be taken forward, considering that they will not be represented on the working group?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The discussion we had on 20 February was very much a preliminary discussion in which a number of general areas were raised. From our perspective, we very much welcomed the exchange. Obviously, officials will be speaking to those organisations, and to others, in greater detail as part of the consultation and as part of the development of our proposals.
The interdepartmental working group is one thing, but we do wish to engage in a very wide-ranging discussion with people who have practical expertise in this area.

Rev Robert Coulter: In again welcoming the decision to appoint a children’s commissioner, may I ask the First Minister to assure me that the Assembly will have ultimate responsibility for children’s matters?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Of course, any legislation will have to be enacted by the Assembly, and so the Assembly will have to consider its relationship with the children’s commissioner. Indeed, the Assembly may wish to consider whether it wishes to have any particular procedure for that responsibility, perhaps through one of the existing Committees. Naturally, the ultimate responsibility will rest with elected representatives here.

North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the items planned for discussion at the next North/South Ministerial Council plenary session.
(AQO997/00)

Mr David McClarty: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an assessment of the work in progress in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
(AQO1815/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 5 together.
The items planned for discussion at the next North/ South Ministerial Council (NSMC) plenary session have not yet been agreed. However, at the last NSMC plenary meeting it was agreed that a report on the study on an independent North/South consultative forum, and one on competitiveness between the two economies, would come forward to the next plenary meeting.
Overall, there is some progress in both the NSMC and the British-Irish Council (BIC), although in some areas that progress has been slower than had been hoped. Of the NSMC’s six implementation bodies that were established, some have been meeting and working well, others have not been meeting. There is substantial progress in a number of the areas, mainly at official level and in terms of co-operation. The work of BIC continues centrally at official level. Difficulties over nomination to both bodies have held back meetings in plenary session, and in some sectors.
The failure of the Minister for Regional Development to participate fully in the institutions has made progress in transport in both BIC and NSMC less easy. The first sectoral meeting of each body, led by the First Minister and myself in December 2000, commenced the work, which is much needed.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply on the proposed agenda for the next North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting. I agree with him that the non-participation of the DUP in certain areas is to the disadvantage of the people of Northern Ireland and I hope that that situation will be remedied very quickly.
We had a strong, emotional debate this morning about foot-and-mouth disease and the many animal health problems that face this community and, indeed, the entire island of Ireland. Will the First and Deputy First Ministers ensure that animal health is a priority on the agenda for the next NSMC meeting? Considering our experiences, many people cannot understand why an implementation body has not yet been created to give this issue a full review.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Despite our powers of persuasion prior to the Good Friday Agreement, it was not possible to have the type of implementation body that many of us wanted. I hope that attitudes will change and that those powers of persuasion will be used more successfully. The importance of co-operation in agriculture on a North/South basis has already been recognised by this Administration and by the NSMC. Animal health is already one of the areas of co-operation in the NSMC. At the last meeting of the NSMC agriculture sector on 17November2000, the council endorsed proposals to formalise liaison arrangements at official level on the full range of animal health matters.
The Council agreed that a strategic steering group should be established to replace the current arrangements. The group would co-ordinate animal health policy on the island. In support of this group, working groups would be set up to consider policy issues on animal health that affect the whole of this island. I am certain that foot-and-mouth disease will be discussed at the next agriculture sector meeting scheduled for 21March2001.

Mr David McClarty: Will the Deputy First Minister agree that the problem with the North/South Ministerial Council lies in the failure of Republicans to fulfil their decommissioning obligations? Does he agree that Sinn Féin Ministers have a responsibility and that they cannot expect to take all the benefits and give nothing in return? Will he support the calls for decommissioning made by Archbishop Brady and the Member for West Belfast, MrAttwood?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The relevance of that question to questions two and five is immediately obvious. However, I will give my views, as the Member has requested.
I have always stated that there is a requirement for decommissioning — it is in the Good Friday Agreement. It is essential that people throughout the North of Ireland are satisfied that there are no illegal weapons or explosives held in this country. I have no problem with stating that again for the record.
In relation to that, and to the question under consideration, a judgement has been made in the courts of the land, and that judgement, pending appeal, stands. There is important business to be done by the Executive, by the North/South bodies and by the British-Irish Council. We should not have any reason to impede that important work.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Deputy First Minister not think that it ill becomes him to come to the House and attack a party that has been consistent in its attendance to this matter? Should he not turn to his partner sitting beside him, who has taken this matter to the courts of the land and is not even nominating his own Ministers now?
I congratulate him on finding that the DUP had set the right example. Does the Deputy First Minister not feel that it ill becomes him now to tell us about all the good things that will come? His dreadful partner — under the terms of the agreement, they act together as Prime Minister — is responsible for this election gimmick.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I commend the Member and his party for their consistency — they are consistently wrong. Consistency ceases to be a virtue when it is based on a false premise.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Deputy First Minister makes a virtue of consistency. Can he tell the Chamber why, at the SDLP conference in November 1998, when talking about decommissioning — with which he is now prepared to dispense — he declared that if the Executive were formed and there was no decommissioning, he would join with his partner-in-crime in hunting the offenders from the Assembly?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I commend the Member for his consistency — he is consistently inaccurate. What I said at our party conference is a matter of record, and I will produce the record for the Member. There was a two-way guarantee — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. This time is for asking Ministers questions in order that they might respond. There is little parliamentary purpose in asking questions and then not listening to the answers that the Minister gives.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. Some Members are consistent in making noise.
I made a guarantee; in fact, I made two guarantees. I said with regard to the institutions that the goalposts could not and should not be moved. My offer was never recognised, and we saw what happened then — suspension and other things. In the interests of accuracy, I will ensure that the inconsistent Member receives a copy of what I said at the party conference before the end of the afternoon.

Northern Ireland Executive: Brussels Office

Mr Sean Neeson: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail when it is intended that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister will visit the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels.
(AQO972/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels should be completed in May. We have not, as yet, made any plans to visit the office, but we will consider how best to launch it in order to gain maximum benefit from our presence in Brussels.

Mr Sean Neeson: I received a written response from the First Minister today about staffing. The Executive are in the process of making two senior appointments to the office in Brussels. Can the First Minister assure me that it will not be a case of jobs for the boys and the girls? What will be the full staffing complement of the office? How widely will the jobs be advertised? What is the target date for the official opening of the office?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We hope that the office will open in May. The delay is regrettable, but it will not frustrate our objective. We have appointed the head of office, and that person will take up post in Brussels on 26 March. The office will be located in the United Kingdom permanent representation until our own facilities are available.
Posts will include head of the office, deputies and locally recruited support staff. The first two mentioned are members of UKRep. consequently, they have diplomatic status, so it is necessary for them to be civil servants. The post was trawled internally and filled in the normal way. There is no question of "jobs for the boys".

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the First Minister agree that the absence of an established, dedicated office in Brussels is not helping us to keep Europe informed about the present difficulties facing our agriculture industry? Does he also agree that the sooner we get the office opened, the sooner we will be able to arrange events such as the excellent "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition hosted by MrRoyBeggs MP at Westminster last week?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Roy Beggs MP took the initiative with the support of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the IDB. It was an excellent venture, and it would be good to be in a position to replicate that in Brussels.
As I said in an earlier reply, the head of our office will be in Brussels this month. It would be nice to have our own office accommodation available immediately, but I am quite sure that he will actively represent Northern Ireland’s interests from the outset. The Member is right to refer to the agricultural problems we are facing. They are very significant. The improvement to our representative capability in Brussels will be very welcome.

Rev William McCrea: Does the First Minister agree that it would be much better to have a dedicated office representing the Assembly in Brussels, rather than one for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, occupied by the cronies of the said Ministers?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is not right for the Member to refer to the civil servants who will be occupying those posts as "cronies". Would the Member make a comment like that about officials generally in the Civil Service or about the civil servants servicing his Colleagues? We should have a little bit more decorum in the way that questions are put.
It is clear that an office of the Executive is needed to represent the Administration. We hope to work closely with other bodies such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) and, indeed, with the MEPs. I hope the Member’s Colleague, who is an MEP, will be prepared to co-operate with us in a more positive way than he is.

TSN Action Plans

Mr Conor Murphy: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the departmental targeting social need action plans approved by the Executive to date.
(AQO994/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: All Ministers have agreed their Department’s New TSN action plans, and those plans are now being implemented. The Executive Committee have agreed to publish a report explaining the New TSN policy and setting out departmental action plans. We expect that report to be published in March.

Mr Conor Murphy: I thank the First Minister for his answer. Can he advise us of the status of any of the action plans published by public bodies — subsidiaries of Departments — in advance of the Executive’s agreeing departmental action plans? Furthermore, in the light of the NISRA report published last Friday, which indicated the continuing unemployment differential between Catholics and Protestants, can he assure us that implementation plans should be more than just targeting efforts and existing resources? Resources should be focused on areas of greatest need to ensure that issues like the unemployment differential are effectively tackled in a realistic timescale.

Rt Hon David Trimble: New TSN was initially developed under direct rule. We have adopted it and are working it out in practice. We will be publishing the departmental programmes and plans in March and the Member will be able to see them then.
One of the things we wish to do — and we will return to this when we debate the Programme for Government later on — is develop the Northern Ireland economy in such a way as to get as close to full employment as possible. The unemployment differential, as it is called in Northern Ireland, has been remarkably stable over the course of the last 25 years. However, the differential between Protestants and Catholics is less than that which exists in the Republic of Ireland — a little-known fact, but one that is relevant and shows the intractability of the problem. We will tackle it by trying to provide as much employment as possible and eliminate unemployment generally. That is the best way to tackle the issue.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I welcome the First Minister’s answer. Can he tell the House how progress on the implementation of the New TSN plan will be monitored?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There will be opportunity to monitor the implementation plans through the Assembly and its Committees, in the same way that Members can monitor the activities of Departments generally.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has its own Equality Unit. This unit will be keeping these plans and their implementation under review. The Deputy First Minister and I are very concerned to ensure that the Administration’s obligations to carry out and implement policies that deal with people fairly across the board and to promote equality of opportunity are met.
We will be looking very carefully at the operation across the Administration to ensure that equality of opportunity is genuinely promoted and that plans, proposals and policies that are unfair are not adopted.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Does the First Minister agree that the unemployment statistics published last Friday illustrate that all sections of the Northern Ireland community are moving much closer to full employment?

Rt Hon David Trimble: That is certainly true. Unemployment is now down to 5·8%, which is close to the lowest record historically. The lowest figure in the twentieth century, so far as I am aware, was 4%, so 5·8% is very encouraging indeed.
There will be significant problems, however, in tackling long-term unemployment and ensuring that people have appropriate skills to enter the labour market. That is why — as we will see when we debate the Programme for Government — that one of the chief emphases of this Administration will be on developing skills in order to enable people to move into the labour market and to take up the benefits of employment opportunities we hope to create.

Victims: Bloomfield Report

Mrs Eileen Bell: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail discussions the Victims Unit has had with the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office regarding the implementation of the Bloomfield Report.
(AQO957/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I first want to pay tribute to the Member for her interest in this issue and her efforts, long before it became fashionable.
The Junior Ministers, Mr Haughey and Mr Nesbitt, regularly meet Mr Ingram, the Northern Ireland Office Minister for Victims, to discuss the matter. The next meeting will take place in the very near future. In addition, officials from the Victims Unit meet their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues relating to the needs of victims, including the Bloomfield Report.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his personal comments. As I have been working in respect of this issue for over 15 years, I do not think that it was a backhanded compliment, but rather a reflection of the work that I have done.
Does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the relationship and work programmes of both units are clear and obvious to all victims — individuals and those in organisations? Can they be assured that they will all be treated equally? Will they also be entitled to apply for the moneys that were announced by the Minister, Adam Ingram, some time ago?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I very much take the point that the Member has made. We are, as are the junior Ministers, keenly aware of the need to work closely with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office and to have regular meetings to ensure that gaps in service provision do not appear and that key areas are being addressed by the relevant parties.
In addition, an information leaflet outlining the split of responsibilities between the two units was sent recently to individual victims’ groups and political parties’ spokespersons. This exercise has received a very positive feedback.
On the last point, I can assure the Member that the Northern Ireland Office will distribute the money that was recently announced. We will be having discussions about that to ensure that we have a very substantial input and that that money is used to the best advantage.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Deputy First Minister for what he said in relation to victims. Does he accept that the word "victim" is bandied around a great deal and that there are many people in Northern Ireland, whose family members were killed or banished, that suffer and are victims too? Can the Deputy First Minister tell the House how his Department defines a victim?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I take the broad point. Over the years we have often heard about lace-curtain poverty throughout Northern Ireland and elsewhere. A similar factor applies to this issue. We should be aware that the entire community has been a victim of the ongoing violence and counter-violence of the past 30 years.
To respond to the Member’s immediate question, I do not think that it is possible to have a totally definitive position on it. Let me try this for size — Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s definition in his report is
"the surviving injured of violent conflict-related incidents and those close relatives or partners who care for them along with close relatives and partners who mourn their dead".
Unfortunately, there are far too many in each category in the North of Ireland. However we define the term "victim", we must realise that there is a need for individuals, groupings, and the entire community, to feel their way out of that terrible period.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister assure the House that much needed funding for victims’ and survivors’ groups will not be syphoned off by Government Departments through bureaucratic administration costs?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I again put it on record that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was allocated £420,000 in the current financial year to assist victims. Final decisions on the allocation of these resources have not yet been made. However, the emphasis will be on providing practical help and support by contributing to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, supporting the four trauma advisory panels, assisting with specific projects undertaken in the health and trauma fields, developing capacity building and by commissioning research on service provision for victims. Of course, the European Peace II programme will include a specific measure for victims, with funding of approximately £6·67 million. This money will become available in the next financial year.
Finally, no one in this society should ever fall into the trap of considering that there are good victims and less worthy victims. All victims need help, and they require the total support of the community. So far as we are concerned, they will get it.

Departments’ Replies to Assembly Members

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the average time taken by each Department to reply to written representations by Members of the Assembly and to give an assessment as to how this has changed since devolution.
(AQO943/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Departments aim to issue ministerial replies to correspondence from Members within 10 working days of receipt. However, depending on the nature of the information sought, some replies may take longer. In such cases, interim replies may be issued to keep Members informed. The position pre-devolution was similar.
We think that to calculate the average time for replies to Members’ correspondence would incur disproportionate costs for all Departments.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the First Minister aware of the fact that it has taken over 20 working days for the Minister of Health to reply to me on the issue of time worked by junior doctors? That does not meet the aim that he has just outlined. Does he not accept that the arrangements that he and his Colleague put in place — consisting of 10 ministerial Departments, 2 junior ministerial Departments and all the "North/Southery" accoutrement — are expensive and excessive and involve duplication? Furthermore, does he not agree that we have too many Ministers but too little democracy? Does he accept that now is the time to review and reduce these arrangements so that Northern Ireland can have the democracy that it is entitled to?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I note the Member’s use of the words "expensive" and "excessive". I must congratulate him in one respect — he has asked more questions than any other Member. Many people will think that his efforts, at a cost of nearly £100 for each question, have been excessive and expensive in themselves.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: This issue is of great importance to many Members, not just in terms of the number of written questions sent directly to Departments but also for the number of questions tabled for oral and written replies here. Can the First Minister quantify the actual value of this pile of questions, which he indicated Mr Paisley Jnr has asked?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the First Minister will have to respond in writing since the time for his questions is up.

Mr Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an interjection, which I suppose could be interpreted as a question, Mr McCartney made an allegation which was incomplete. In the interests of accuracy — and with your tolerance — may I put the matter right? This is what he omitted:
"Similarly, there is a fear among Sinn Féin supporters that whatever they do Unionists will up the ante by contriving new demands and conditions to exclude them from executive office. Again, I believe that this is an unfounded" — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. Will Members please resume their seats. I will have to make a comment about matters of order in response to a question earlier today, but I hope that those who raise points of order will remain in order. The Deputy First Minister is responding to something that was said earlier, and I have to say that this does not seem to be a point of order. However, on a number of occasions Members have sought to refute something that was said about them personally. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander — not that that expression is any reflection on the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This gander will conclude on this note. I quote exactly:
"If, however, it was misguidedly attempted, neither our party nor I as Deputy First Minister would confer any compliance, support or credibility on such a blatant contravention of the Agreement."
Mr McCartney, over to you.

Mr Robert McCartney: Oh no. I have it here.

Mr Speaker: Members will know very well that aids and accompaniments are not acceptable in the Chamber. I hope that all Members, however distinguished, will observe that.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. A matter was raised earlier today with regard to what recourse would be taken when Standing Orders were not sufficient. There seemed to be some uncertainty. Therefore I refer the House to the ruling I made on Monday 14 December 1998:
"I intend to use Erskine May for guidance on matters which arise during business in the Assembly or other matters where I am asked to give a ruling and where the Initial Standing Orders and the draft Standing Orders are not clear or are insufficient."
I had assumed that Members would understand that the same would apply when we moved to our own Standing Orders. When Standing Orders are not clear, or are insufficient, I will have recourse to Erskine May, except in the very exceptional circumstances where Erskine May would be in conflict with our Standing Orders. When Standing Orders are inadequate, or when they are entirely silent, I will use Erskine May, as I said on 14 December 1998.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: SDLP take note.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: My accuracy was called into question by the Deputy First Minister. I obtained a proof copy of what he said, which was entirely consistent with the remarks I had made in the House. I have it here. I was aware that it would not be a point of order to do exactly what you permitted the Deputy First Minister to do. You acknowledged that it was not a point of order, but you let him make it. Knowing you to be a person of probity and equity, I have to say that the same right to breach — if that is what it was — a point of order, or question, should be extended to me briefly as was extended to the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is clearly not a time for an exposé of the rightness or otherwise — [Interruption].

Mr Robert McCartney: But you permitted it.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: You permitted it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The matter was raised by the Member in question. He chose to make a remark about what another Member had said. He made his remark from certain proofs — so be it. The Member has asked for an opportunity to respond. Other Members have, at times, asked for opportunities to respond when their integrity has been called into question by a particular reference. The Deputy First Minister took such an opportunity. It is inappropriate now to engage in a toing and froing, but if the Members wish to exchange papers which demonstrate something, that is another matter. If the substance of this question is a matter of earnest debate, it should properly be debated in the form of a motion.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Speaker, I endorse what you have said. However, you yourself indicated that the Deputy First Minister’s response was not a point of order — and he did rise on a point of order; in fact that was his opening gambit — yet you chose to allow it. You justified your decision on the basis that the Deputy First Minister was responding to something that had called his accuracy into question, yet you deny me the same opportunity to respond.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member does not seem to be aware —

Mr Robert McCartney: I am very aware.

Mr Speaker: —that he is running perilously close to questioning the integrity of the Speaker, in which case he would be wholly out of order. The Deputy First Minister asked for an opportunity to respond in the form of a point of order, but, as I indicated, that was an incorrect term to use. His was a statement in response to the question that had been asked, and I permitted it. That is for the Speaker to do, as the Member knows very well.

Mr Robert McCartney: With equity and fairness.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for your kind remarks in that regard.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Dr Paisley, you have already had one point of order. My generosity knows no bounds, so I will allow you to make one further point. This must be the last one.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I view with seriousness, Mr Speaker, your challenge to a Member that he was moving into very serious territory just because he tried to defend himself. He was not moving so, and he did pay tribute to your integrity. He is entitled to respond to the Member’s comment that he did not say something which he did, in fact, say.

Mr Speaker: Order. A Member is not entitled to question a ruling from the Speaker, as Dr Paisley, who is probably the most experienced parliamentarian in this Chamber, knows well. I hold by the ruling that I have given. [Interruption].
Order. If Members wish to have a conversation, they are entirely entitled to do so, but they should have it in the Lobby so that others, who want to observe the conversation, will know where it is taking place.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Regional Development

Urban Clearways: Control Zones

Mrs Eileen Bell: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his plans to alter the timings attributed to control zones on urban clearways.
(AQO960/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have no plans at present to alter the operation times of urban clearways that are designated under road traffic legislation. My Department’s Roads Service, in conjunction with the police, carries out periodic reviews of these times to ensure that they are consistent with traffic management requirements.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Is the Minister aware that serious traffic congestion occurs in urban clearways outside the current timings, particularly on Friday afternoons before 4.30 pm? That seriously impedes the journey home for many commuters. Will the Minister consider extending the timings to relieve that situation?

Mr Gregory Campbell: There has to be a balance between the benefits that waiting restrictions bring to traffic movement and the inconvenience for those who wish to park for access to shops, and so on. That is an operational decision for the Roads Service. Officials periodically review clearway times with the RUC, which has responsibility for enforcement. If any Member has a query about a particular location he may take the matter up with the divisional roads manager in the relevant division. In Mrs Bell’s case that is the eastern division. If subsequent to that there is still dissatisfaction I will look at the individual case.

Public Transport (Rural Areas)

Mr John Fee: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to review public transport services in rural areas; and to make a statement.
(AQO989/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Public transport services in rural areas will be considered during the development of the 10-year regional transportation strategy. In addition, and as part of my Department’s obligations under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, an equality impact assessment of the strategic planning and operational management of the bus and rail network — including that in rural areas — is planned for 2001-02.
There have already been recent substantial improvements to public transport facilities serving district towns and their rural hinterlands. New bus stations have opened in Newry and Armagh, and combined bus and rail centres will open soon in Bangor and Coleraine. Construction of a new bus station in Magherafelt is underway, and work on a new bus station in Antrim is expected to begin in the next financial year. Translink is also keen to construct a new bus station in Downpatrick.
The Department for Regional Development also administers the rural transport fund for Northern Ireland which provides around £1·3 million annually to support community-based transport schemes, additional rural bus services and research into rural transport needs.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for his answer, and may I ask him to thank his officials for consulting me on my question during the week. He will not be surprised by my asking him to consider a number of other imaginative schemes that will apply existing resources to supporting transport services in rural areas. Specifically, I am asking about the pilot projects that have been undertaken in Britain and parts of Northern Ireland to use the postal services to help provide transport for the elderly and vulnerable in particular. Will the Minister look at the possibility of utilising the fleet of education and library board buses that are all over Northern Ireland and which have qualified drivers? Those buses lie redundant for most of the summer and every evening.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The post buses to which the hon Member refers are minibus-type vehicles that are owned and operated by the Post Office. Not only do they deliver mail, but they also provide transport for fare- paying passengers in local areas. They are more prevalent in Scotland. However, the Post Office currently operates extremely limited services in Fermanagh. Officials from the Department for Regional Development have had discussions with the Post Office about extending post-bus services in Northern Ireland with funding from the rural transport fund. The Post Office has not yet taken up the offer of support. I would be prepared to re-examine the possible extension of post-bus services.
The issue of education and library board buses is one that I will need to discuss with other Departments. Rural bus services are frequently — almost invariably — uneconomic and are subsidised by profit from urban services. Unfortunately, the Department for Regional Development does not have the resources to subsidise rural bus services, whether provided by Translink or by education and library boards. However, I am prepared to have discussions about the possibility of extension.

Mr Jim Shannon: There are already some public transport schemes in the Province, including one in my constituency of Strangford. Will these schemes, which were in the past partially funded by Europe and by Government Departments, continue in the future? Will similar schemes be initiated to provide public transport in areas of the Province which at present do not have adequate coverage?

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I have not had notice of the supplementary question, I am unable to respond immediately to it. However, I will undertake research to find out whether I can give an assurance that those services can continue. These issues will be considered under the regional transportation strategy. The consultation period for that strategy began in January2001 and will end in the middle of this month. The strategy will be brought before the Assembly in the autumn. All these matters will be up for consideration as part of that strategy, but I will undertake to obtain the information that the Member has asked for and to respond to him in writing.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his warm and generous consideration of those living in rural areas and their need for transport services. I ask him to give the same consideration to my constituents in Glenavy and Ballinderry, and also my neighbouring constituents in Crumlin, when he considers the possible "mothballing" — I think that that is the term that has been used — of the railway line. With his generosity and his recognition for those living in rural areas, it would be incomprehensible if the Minister were to consider mothballing this facility, in view of the hardship that those people would suffer.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for the supplementary question and the ingenuity with which he brought it to bear on the Floor of the House. I have met four separate delegations on this matter. The consultation period for the Antrim-Knockmore line closed at the weekend. Last weekend there was a considerable response to the advertising of the possible mothballing of the line.
I was acutely aware before the advertising of the consultation period closed, and am even more so now, that I am in receipt of a considerable volume of objections to the closure of the line. I will give sympathetic consideration to everyone who comes to see me about the line. I hope and expect — and this is without prejudice to whatever the final outcome may be — that, if the points made by all those objectors and by the hon Member are of such validity that I decide to retain the line, I will get the funding from the Assembly to allow me to keep it open.

Housing Schemes: Roads and Services

Mr Roy Beggs: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give his assessment of the time taken by developers to complete housing schemes in bringing roads and services up to the required standard, thus enabling them to be adopted by his Department.
(AQO1019/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: In the case of private streets which have been determined through the planning process, it is the responsibility of developers to bring roads and sewers up to the required standard for adoption by the Department for Regional Development. Where such roads and sewers are provided to the prescribed standards, they are adopted promptly. Progress of developments in general is related to many varied factors and, regrettably, can sometimes be much slower than is desirable.
Where satisfactory completion of roads is not effected within a reasonable period from the date of completion of dwellings, my Department has powers under the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, as amended, to enable it to complete the necessary work at the developer’s expense. Such action is normally only initiated after efforts to persuade developers to meet their obligations have not been successful, with each case carefully considered on its merits.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that almost 20 years is an unacceptably long period to wait before roads and services are brought up to standard and adopted in a new development, such as Prospect in Carrickfergus? Will the Minister ensure that, in future, developers’ bonds are accessed, using the article 11 procedure, at a much earlier stage in order to ensure that roads and sewerage in a private development are brought up to standard? Does he agree that there are unacceptably large numbers of unadopted roads in the Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey areas?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member referred to Carrickfergus and the East Antrim area. Roads Service informs me that there are approximately 60 developments, representing an estimated 130 bonded sites, around Carrickfergus. Roads Service is working with the developers to bring these sites to adoption standards as quickly as possible.
The hon Member referred to Carrickfergus in particular, and I should inform him that notices under article 11 of the 1980 Order were issued on 15 February, giving a particular developer 28 days — the minimum allowed under the Order — to commence necessary remedial work.

Road Defects: Public Liability Claims

Mr Ivan Davis: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his Department’s expenditure during the last financial year on public liability claims arising out of defects on public roads.
(AQO1008/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Expenditure on public liability claims peaked in the mid-1980s at £6 million. Claims arising out of defects on public roads in 1999-2000 were in the region of £3·4 million. The reduction has been brought about by the introduction of the Central Claims Unit and the improvement in road maintenance systems. Obviously, one of the difficulties is the current level of expenditure on road maintenance, which I have continually said is half of what is required.

Mr Ivan Davis: Following the recent publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on Roads Service management of street works in Northern Ireland, the Minister announced measures to ensure that utilities reinstated roads properly after digging them up. We all have experience of roads needing repairs just days or weeks after works are completed. Can the Minister assure me that roads are inspected immediately after work is completed and that appropriate action will be taken?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I share the Member’s concern over issues arising out of the Audit Office report. I have written to all the utilities concerned and I hope to meet with senior representatives of those utilities in the near future in order to establish the exact point that he raised. People have a right to expect that these utilities — which by law are able to enter the road surface to lay cables — ensure that the maintenance and relaying of a road’s surface is to the same standard as it would have been if they were not there. I am determined that that will be the case.

Mr John Dallat: My question is rather similar. Does the Minister agree that when his Department complies with the report’s recommendations, public liability claims should be substantially reduced?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I hope that that will be the case. It is certainly my intention that it should be. The more we can encourage utilities to do what is both their moral obligation and their legal obligation, the more likely we are to see a reduction in the number of claims. The forthcoming meeting that I intend to have with the utilities will maintain that specific objective in mind.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There have been recent allegations in the Foyle constituency of surplus maintenance that has been nothing short of archaeological digs. Owing to the lack of co-operation between the Roads Service and the Water Service, some streets and roads have been dug up no less than five or six times during one programme of surface maintenance. Can the Minister tell us how the management of those programmes could be better directed?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I want to ensure that any difficulties arising out of an alleged lack of co-operation are not repeated. The indications in recent months have been that co-operation has improved considerably. Nonetheless, if there are signs that a lack of co-operation is at the core of a difficulty in terms of surface maintenance, I will endeavour to ensure that it does not happen again and will have the necessary officials investigate the matter and respond to the questioner.

Roads (Moyle District) and Frosses Road (A26)

Mr Gardiner Kane: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans for upgrading the road infrastructure in the Moyle Council area and, in particular, the fourth phase of dual carriageway on the A26 Frosses Road from Glarryford to Ballymoney.
(AQO980/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Roads Service is considering proposals to dual the section of the A26 between Glarryford and the Ballycastle junction. The proposed scheme, which is estimated to cost some £16 million, is currently being assessed for possible inclusion in the 10-year forward planning schedule. However, there are many schemes competing for inclusion, and the size of the schedule will depend on the overall funding that is available. I hope to announce details of the forward planning schedule later this year. In the Moyle Council area, there is also a continuing programme of minor works schemes.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the A26. Does he accept the imperative for an adequate access route into the Moyle and Causeway coast area? The present thoroughfare is not conducive to desperately needed economic development in that area.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The short answer is "Yes". If the question were posed by any one of a number of Members, the answer would be the same. There are a number of schemes under way in relation to the Moyle area that should be of some benefit. For example, a one-mile southbound climbing lane on the section of the road between Newbuildings junction at the southern end of the Ballymoney bypass and Glenlough Road. That is estimated to cost £500,000 and is currently under way. Improvements at the Portrush Road roundabout at Ballymoney, involving the construction of differential acceleration lanes on both main road exits from the roundabout to allow the safe overtaking of slow-moving vehicles away from the roundabout, will be carried out shortly at an estimated cost of £180,000. These are indications of the importance that Roads Service attaches to the road network in the north coast area.

Antrim-Knockmore Railway

Mr Edwin Poots: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the level of subsidy provided by his Department to operate the Antrim-Knockmore railway line.
(AQO953/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Department for Regional Department provides Translink with an annual subsidy to meet the deficit it incurs in operating railway services in Northern Ireland. The Department expects to pay about £12 million to Translink in the current financial year. However, the subsidy is not route-specific. Therefore there is no information available as to the level of subsidy that is required to operate the Antrim-Knockmore section of the Londonderry-Belfast route.
In the light of the proposal to close the Antrim to Knockmore line, I accept that we must obtain the best estimate of how much subsidy would be required to continue to operate services on this line in addition to providing a service from Antrim to Belfast via Bleach Green. My Department has asked Translink to provide this information.

Mr Edwin Poots: When will the Minister be in a position to tell us how much money the Department believes may be allocated in subsidy for this line? Will the Department, in arriving at its conclusion, take into account the subsidy for the replacement bus service, together with the fact that fewer people would use that service?

Mr Gregory Campbell: On 23 February my Department received an economic appraisal for the retention of the Antrim to Knockmore line. That contains a considerable amount of useful information, but it does not tell us how much it would cost to keep the line open until major work is required. We have asked Translink for that additional information. The economic appraisal says that major work on the track will be required in about three years’ time. The estimated cost is approximately £12 million.
At this point, I will repeat what I have said in response to the many representations which have been made to me about the line: I want the line to remain open, and I know that many Members share my view. However, we must face up to the fact that it will cost money to keep it operational, even in the three years before the major work is required. The net running costs of the bus substitution service to which the Member referred are likely to be much lower than the cost of maintaining the train service. My Department has asked Translink for its best estimate of the net running cost of the train service.

Mr Billy Bell: Has the Minister considered the implications for the Belfast Area Plan of this proposal to close the Antrim to Knockmore line, particularly in the light of the proposed location of 20,000 new houses along this public transport route? As an interim measure, is he prepared to consider the provision of a light railway shuttle service on that line instead of the proposed bus service?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Unfortunately, there is no short, simple and obvious answer to the Member’s question nor to the analysis underlying it. I am prepared to look at any option that will assist in keeping the line open. Several options have been placed before me, and I am examining each one. We were told that Irish Rail had spare rolling stock. Approaches were made about this, but it emerged that no such stock is available. There have been indications that Translink might be able to get rolling stock from Great Britain, which might be suitable after modification for our gauge. So far, however, that venture has proved unsuccessful. It is likely to be towards the end of 2003 before Translink can acquire new trains.
I am prepared to examine all options to try to keep the line open.

Saintfield Road (Belfast): Traffic Congestion

Mr Mark Robinson: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail his plans to relieve traffic congestion on the Saintfield Road approach to Belfast.
(AQO983/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I explained during the Adjournment debate on 3 October 2000, my Department is endeavouring to tackle this problem by several means.
First, we introduced Belfast’s first quality bus corridor in late June 2000. Secondly, we intend providing a park-and-ride facility at Cairnshill. This is dependent on planning approval and the availability of the necessary land and resources. Finally, we are giving due consideration to the provision of a dedicated busway, a "superroute" between Cairnshill and the city centre. This is a potential long-term project and Translink, in conjunction with my Department, has commissioned consultants to evaluate the merits and environmental impacts of alternative alignments for the busway.
The thrust of each of these measures is towards developing alternative modes of transport. In this context consultants are due to be appointed shortly to carry out a study and help produce a Belfast metropolitan transport plan. This study will include proposals for the city centre and transport corridors, including the southern approaches, and it will be carried out in conjunction with the preparation of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, which has recently commenced.

Mr Mark Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response. Can he comment further on the likely time frame involved in alleviating the situation on the ground, given the fact that there are already more than 30,000 cars using this route on a weekly basis?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assure the Member and the House that Roads Service is continuing to monitor and review traffic conditions on the Saintfield Road and to identify the nature and location of additional safety measures that might be employed along that important arterial route. Roads Service is also investigating other measures that can assist in dealing with the increasing level and volume of traffic on what is, I accept, a very busy and important arterial route into Belfast city centre. We are looking at a number of options and would be prepared to consider in the foreseeable future other choices that would materialise once the bus corridors and the other aspects that I have outlined have been operational for a time.

Roads (Hannahstown and Glenavy)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans to upgrade the roads in the Hannahstown and Glenavy areas.
(AQO961/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: My Department’s Roads Service has no current plans to upgrade roads in the Hannahstown and Glenavy areas, although consideration is being given to resurfacing the Upper Springfield Road and the A26 Moira Road between Glenavy and Ballinderry Upper within the next two years.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I want to draw attention to the Hannahstown area, particularly the hairpin bend down to the top of Hannahstown Hill and the repairs that are needed there due to the horrendous state of the road. Since last October I have been asking the Minister’s Department for an answer to a letter I sent about this matter, and, despite numerous reminders, I have still had no reply.
How does the Minister’s Department prioritise the resurfacing or upgrading of roads in the first place, and what consultation, if any, is there between you or your Department and the local community in considering their needs or priorities?

Ms Jane Morrice: Minister, I advise you that you have only some 20 seconds to respond.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will write to the hon Member, but I am aware of a recent protest in relation to the surface of the road. I will undertake to establish why there has not been a response to the Member’s letter, if that is the case, and will write to the hon Member accordingly.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 19(7). Why does MsLewsley have to wait for a written answer? There were two questions earlier — one was a supplementary to John Fee’s, and it definitely was not a supplementary question under that Standing Order.
The other was by MrsNelis in relation to question4. Both were additional questions. If we continue to use this practice, other Members who are waiting will not have their questions answered. People have taken time to submit written questions for oral answer. We should respect that and not allow others to ask irrelevant questions.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for that point of order. Some Members use very imaginative methods to ask supplementary questions in order to get their point across. That point is noted.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, surely if Members are asking questions, which, to use your own word, are "imaginative" to get their points across, it is your responsibility to decide whether the question is in order. By your own admission, it seems that you noticed a couple of questions that were not in order yet you permitted them.

Ms Jane Morrice: The questions were in order. When I said "imaginative ways" I was describing the means by which Members link their supplementary questions to the main question that has been asked. That is why the supplementaries were not out of order.

The Environment

Planning: Multiple-Occupation Housing

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail planning restrictions on the approval of houses of multiple occupation to avoid causing destruction to local communities.
(AQO942/00)

Mr Sam Foster: That is a complex area of planning law. Multiple occupancy is regarded as a house that is occupied by persons who do not form a single household. Permitted development currently allows up to six people, who may not be related, to share accommodation without having to submit a planning application. Student and nursing accommodation typically falls into that category, as do households in which groups of people in need of care live together. It is regarded as a material change of use when accommodation is subdivided into discrete living units, and in those circumstances planning permission is required. The main criterion against which such applications are judged is the exisitng amenity of the area.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: It is not just the amenity of the area that concerns me. Is the Minister aware of the character change to a community that can occur when an overabundance of houses of multiple occupation is allowed? Does he agree that his Department has a responsibility to preserve a community’s character? Whatever happened in the past, what plans does he have to ensure that it does not happen in the future?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of the problems that seem to be arising around the coastline insofar as apartment development is concerned, especially in seaside towns such as Newcastle. My Department is addressing the issue in two ways. The Department is finalising, after public consultation, a planning policy statement titled ‘Quality Residential Developments’. That will provide a policy context against which proposals for housing development on greenfield lands and in existing urban areas can be considered, including the relationship with existing development.
The Department is also preparing for consultation supplementary planning guidance in the form of a development control advice note. That will give guidance specifically related to proposals for small-unit housing in existing residential areas. I hope to publish both documents in the spring. I understand that the Department for Regional Development will also prepare a regional planning policy statement titled ‘Housing In Settlements’, which will also provide guidance on the matter. I am aware of the problems that have arisen. We are sensitive to the issue and shall look at it where we can.

Buildings of Architectural or Historic Importance

Mr Sean Neeson: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his policy on the preservation of buildings of architectural merit and historic interest that are not listed.
(AQO958/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Policy on the preservation of unlisted buildings of architectural merit and historic interest is set out in my Department’s planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, which was published in March1999. A copy of that statement is available in the Assembly Library. It refers to buildings of architectural merit and historic interest situated in conservation areas, in areas of townscape or village character and in local landscape policy areas.
It also sets out policies for the control of new developments, demolition or advertisements in a conservation area. In particular, in conservation areas, the Department favours the retention of any building that positively contributions to the character or appearance of the area. The statement also includes a policy that encourages the sympathetic reuse and renovation of non-listed vernacular buildings in recognition of the importance of such buildings to our heritage and regional identity.
We are also considering proposals to strengthen enforcement powers in that area. Those proposals are being considered for inclusion in a Bill to amend planning legislation, which I hope to introduce in the Assembly in the next session. The Member will also be aware that my Department recently declared five new conservation areas in Belfast to protect existing buildings of character from unregulated demolition. Those were previously declared areas of townscape character in the 1990s.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his response, but does he not agree that there is a need to look at the whole question of listing buildings of historic and architectural merit? That applies not only to those buildings in the conservation areas but to those outside, bearing in mind the issues of the previous question, and to the number of large houses that are being demolished to make way for new apartment blocks.

Mr Sam Foster: The second survey of all historic buildings in Northern Ireland has been under way for almost fouryears. That comprehensive survey considers the interior, exterior and history of each building and evaluates it against the criteria for listing. We are aware of the situation that prevails at this time. My Department and I recognise that the demolition and redevelopment of some houses that are not listed can have a detrimental effect on the character and quality of existing residential environments. That is especially the case when large detached residences are demolished to make way for town houses and apartment blocks, and the housing density is significantly increased. The use of conservation areas to protect buildings is a developing policy. If that approach is successful in Belfast it could be used in other parts of Northern Ireland. Demolition is also one of the areas that is being considered for the forthcoming Bill.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that it is a matter of extreme urgency that townscapes be extended beyond the Belfast metropolitan area to take in places such as Carrickfergus where historic buildings are in danger of immediate demolition? Does the Minister also agree that the appearance of apartments and town houses in the Newtownabbey area represents a serious threat to the townscape character already there and that stronger provisions are needed urgently?

Mr Sam Foster: My officials in the Planning Service and in the Environment and Heritage Service work together to identify and delineate those areas. I am aware of the issues, and I encourage those who are concerned about their local built environment to take advantage of the opportunities being provided to comment on local plans. They can do that by writing to the relevant planning teams about locally treasured buildings and places. I am aware of the problems in the Newtownabbey area — MrRobinson has referred them to me before. We take those concerns seriously and are looking into the issues. I am also aware of an application for development and listed building consent to demolish Governor’s Place in Carrickfergus. Those applications were received on 22December2000, and they are at an early stage of consideration.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister has dealt with part of my question, and several other Members have asked about similar concerns. Is the Minister aware that, as we speak, buildings of architectural merit in Portrush are being demolished systematically by speculators that need the ground for apartments? Does he agree that the policies that exist are totally inadequate to deal with the problem?

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the Member that, as he suggested, that question has already been put to the Minister and he has responded to those issues. The only difference is in the location. Does the Minister wish to respond or does he wish to move on?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of the situation to which the Member refers. We are concerned when such things happen, and we shall take it into consideration when we try to do something about it. I assure the Member that those matters do not go unnoticed.

Taxis

Mr Mark Robinson: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail when he expects to introduce legislation governing the use of public and private hire taxis.
(AQO982/00)

Mr Sam Foster: At present, I have no plans to amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which governs the licensing of drivers of public and private hire taxis and their vehicles in Northern Ireland. In the longer term it would be valuable to bring the legislation up to date.
However, my bid for additional resources to do so in the 2001-02 Budget was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, I shall continue to consider how the situation might be addressed within my Department’s existing resources and priorities.
I recently met representatives of the Belfast Public Hire Taxi Association, together with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Assembly’s Environment Committee. Although I am unable to hold out the prospect of early legislation on taxi licensing, I have asked my officials to do all that they can to address the taxi drivers’ concerns under existing legislation.
My Deparment also sets the fares to be charged by public hire taxis in Belfast under by-laws. Shortly, I intend to propose amendments to the by-laws to increase those fares, which were last increased in 1996.

Mr Mark Robinson: As the Minister will be aware, the existing legislation is some 50years old and, as a result, is totally inadequate. What does the Minister intend to do about the legislation, as he will, I am sure, be aware that there have been instances in which individual taxi drivers have been persecuted, victimised and demonised? Does he agree that that is a totally inadequate situation?

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask Members and the Minister to be concise in their questions and answers.

Mr Sam Foster: After devolution, regulation of the taxi industry, including any proposals for fundamental changes, is now my Department’s responsibility, as we are all aware. As I stated in my earlier answer, a wider review of the current legislation governing the taxi industry would be valuable.
However, my Department is also required to ensure that members of the public can travel without unnecessary risk. It must therefore be satisfied that licences are granted only to persons who meet the requirements of repute.
In determining repute, the Department takes account of convictions, as confirmed by the RUC Criminal Records Office, against a set of guidelines that categorise convictions as serious or minor. That is an important issue that we are looking into, and we must ensure that we safeguard the public.

Mrs Annie Courtney: In many ways, the Minister has responded to my question. We are all aware of the number of people who use their cars illegally, and the amount of distress that that causes. It causes much distress in my area.
Perhaps part of the problem is that people who should not be driving are being allowed to do so. I hope that when the Minister amends the legislation it addresses all criminal activity in the taxi industry.

Ms Jane Morrice: I shall move on because the Member has admitted that her question has been answered.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Can the Minister give an assurance that people with criminal convictions will not be eligible for taxi licences in the future?

Mr Sam Foster: I would be failing in my duty to protect the public if I were to allow those convicted of murder or serious sexual offences to be granted taxi licences. The criteria do not attempt to take account of the motives of ex-offenders, and I do not propose to change that policy. It is open to the courts, on appeal, to take into account all the circumstances of a case.

Animal Waste: Environmental Damage

Mr Gardiner Kane: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the steps he is taking to reduce the risk of damage to the environment caused by animal waste.
(AQO985/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I refer the Member to AQO719/00, which I answered on 5February2001, as is recorded in the Official Report for that day. That answer set out in detail the arrangements to prevent and police pollution incidents, including those caused by farms.
My answer also set out the significant increase in the number of staff devoted to that work over recent years. It also described the further increases in staff planned from the additional resources that I obtained in the Budget for next year, together with additional regulatory receipts. Headquarters staff on pollution prevention and response will increase from three to nine, and the number of staff in the water quality unit of the Environment and Heritage Service will increase from 44 to 77.
I also plan to strengthen the statutory regime for controlling animal waste. The Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 enables my Department to make regulations to control the storage of slurry, silage and fuel oils on farms. The Order also gives my Department increased powers to serve works notices that require farmers to take remedial action to stop or prevent pollution. That is detailed because I have been asked to give detail.
The Environment and Heritage Service takes vigorous action against polluters, including the instigation of prosecution proceedings when the circumstances warrant it. For serious pollution incidents, including fish kills, prosecutions will be expected to follow if the perpetrators can be identified.
However, the 1999 Order cannot come into operation until a commencement Order has been made. That in turn must wait for other enabling Regulations that were the subject of recent public consultation. My Department expects to be able to bring the 1999 Order into operation in the next two months and to have the new Regulations in place later this year.
Agricultural waste, which generally includes animal waste, is not controlled waste under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. It is not, therefore, covered by the Northern Ireland waste management strategy that my Department published last March. However, we intend to bring agricultural waste under the controlled regime. My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are working together to develop an agricultural waste strategy to be incorporated into the overall Northern Ireland waste management strategy at its first review in 2002.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Kane, there was a great deal of detail in that response. Do you require a supplementary question?

Mr Gardiner Kane: I accept some of the Minister’s response, but I was speaking about the disposal of animal by-product waste at landfill sites and his Department’s responsibility for possible human infection from material at those sites. The risk of BSE infection to humans from specified waste materials that are put into landfill sites — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Was there a question?

Mr Gardiner Kane: No.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging answer. Do his proposals to increase, in particular, the policing and regulation of farm sewage place greater pressure on farms while we ourselves do not revise our thinking on how we should deal with the problem?
Does the Minister agree that if he acted in concert with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who expressed an interest this morning in renewable energy resources, the matter could be approached proactively? They could do that by encouraging the building of anaerobic digesters, which would both recycle farm sewage in an environmentally friendly way and produce energy from a renewable resource.

Mr Sam Foster: The Environment and Heritage Service is actively engaged in pollution prevention measures. Through co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Countryside Management Division, it helps to target farm assessments and assists in the preparation of codes of good agricultural practice. All farmers who are prosecuted for causing pollution are offered a free advisory visit by staff from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
My Department has no direct responsibility for the disposal of fallen animals or incinerated carcasses. However, my officials will stay in touch with their counterparts in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to ensure that the arrangements for the burial of carcasses or incinerated remains pose no risk of pollution to rivers or ground waters.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Animal by-products from slaughter, such as stomach and gut contents and blood, can be spread on land where that practice is considered beneficial to the soil. Regulations require landowners to notify district councils where "land spreading" takes place. To prevent environment contamination and animal health risks, that practice is subject to control under the animal by-products Regulations enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Blood certified as being free from disease by veterinary officers at the time of slaughter poses no risk and is therefore exempt under the Regulations. All waste from abattoirs has been directed to suitable licensed and risk-assessed landfill sites because of foot-and-mouth disease, and advice has been issued to district councils.

Area Plans

Mr William Hay: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the current situation in implementing area plans across Northern Ireland.
(AQO990/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The Department’s development plan programme, which is reviewed and rolled forward annually, is published in Planning Service’s corporate and business plans.
The objective of the programme is to provide development plan coverage for all district council areas in Northern Ireland by 2005. The current position is as follows: area plans for the districts of Antrim, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Larne, Armagh, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Moyle, Derry, Limavady, Omagh, Strabane and Fermanagh were adopted and are being implemented; the Lisburn area plan is scheduled for adoption before the summer; the Cookstown area plan has been the subject of a public inquiry, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission are awaited, and draft development plans have been published for the Craigavon and Dungannon districts, and public inquiries will be held during 2001-02.
As the programme progresses, several plans, including some of those referred to, will need to be replaced. Therefore, a replacement programme is also under way. Replacement area plans are in preparation for the Newry and Mourne and Banbridge districts, the Ards and Down districts and the Magherafelt district. They are also being prepared for the six districts — Belfast, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and north Down — that comprise the Belfast metropolitan area plan. Work is scheduled to begin during 2001-02 on replacement plans for the Coleraine, Ballymoney, Limavady, Moyle, Antrim, Ballymena and Larne districts. Work on the three remaining districts of Armagh, Omagh and Strabane to complete up-to-date area plan coverage is scheduled to begin in 2002-03.

Mr Speaker: The Member may now understand the danger of putting terms such as "detail the current situation" into his questions. Sometimes one gets what one asks for.

Mr William Hay: Does the Department of the Environment have adequate resources to ensure that area plans are properly implemented in Northern Ireland? Can the Minister tell the House the number of article 31 applications that are before planners in Northern Ireland at present? What impact will those applications have on the implementation of area plans across the Province?

Mr Sam Foster: I cannot tell the Member the number of article 31 applications that are with planners at present, but I shall provide him with a written reply. I am generally satisfied that the resources are available — so far as one can be absolute about anything— to my Department to meet the target date of 2005, subject to the normal consultation process. Although I recognise the pressures of statutory consultees, I expect that they will recognise the importance of area plans and allocate resources as necessary.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Does the Minister agree that the implementation of area plans across Northern Ireland may be complicated, if not compromised, by the uncertainty regarding future structures of local government and that that uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible?

Mr Sam Foster: That is an imponderable question. The area plans can run concurrently with whatever is decided in future under the public administration review. I cannot give the Member an answer to that. I cannot be absolute about it, but I can assure him that there is nothing wrong with working on the strategy at the moment.

Mr Jim Wilson: Is the Minister satisfied that progress towards the goal of having all areas covered by 2005 is achievable?

Mr Sam Foster: I refer my Colleague to my earlier answer.
I am generally satisfied that the resources that my Department will need to meet the target date of 2005 — subject to the normal consultation process — are available. I cannot be absolute about it. We are working towards 2005.

Planning Applications (Kircubbin Area)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment to explain how two planning applications have been approved by the Planning Service while other applications have been deferred until the new Kircubbin sewage treatment works has been provided.
(AQO978/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Several planning applications have been held pending a decision on the future development of the Kircubbin sewage treatment works. On 13 February 2001, Planning Service consulted Ards Borough Council with a preliminary opinion to approve two related applications. One of those related to the refurbishment of an existing building. Water Service had no objection to that development on the grounds that there would be no additional discharge.
The second proposal concerned apartment development, and the recommendation to approve was made in error. This error was discovered by Planning Service and did not result in a formal approval’s being issued.
Water Service has recently advised that the design of the new sewage works for Kircubbin is at an advanced stage, and work is programmed to commence on site in autumn 2001, subject to planning permission. Although Water Service’s position remains that no additional discharge can be accepted because of overloading of the existing works, it has stated that it will not oppose planning applications, provided developers are prepared to phase construction to coincide with the completion of the sewage works. In light of that information, planning applications that currently stand deferred by Ards Borough Council until the new Kircubbin sewage treatment works has been provided will now be considered.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister acknowledge the very bitter concern of local applicants who have consistently been refused planning permission? There is currently a wait of up to five years until the new sewage treatment facility is provided. Along comes an application for apartments, which has just been mentioned, and — hey presto! — the decision from the planning people is "OK". There is no problem and no mention of sewerage. The local community is furious.
Will the Minister assure the Assembly that his Department will fulfil its obligations in relation to planning applications throughout Northern Ireland on a consistent, fair and equitable basis, and one that would not give rise to any kind of suspicions?

Mr Sam Foster: The Member used the word "suspicions". I do not accept that the planning people are inconsistent. I know that there are problems and difficulties, but I can assure the House that no planning application goes through without deep thought and rigorous assessment. I cannot accept what the Member has just said. I assure him that we view the situation in a pedantic and consistent way. We look at the infrastructures surrounding all applications, and each application is taken on its own particular merits.

Mr Speaker: I am curious to hear to which part of Kircubbin sewage treatment works Mr Roy Beggs wishes to refer.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that it would be environmentally irresponsible for Planning Service to continue to grant planning approval for all new developments, knowing that pollution of the environment would result if the sewage treatment works is already overloaded, as it is in parts of my constituency? Will he take into consideration the views of the Environment and Heritage Service on the ability of the local sewage treatment works to cope when he considers new planning applications that would potentially further overload the local capacity?

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure Mr Beggs that we take all those issues into consideration. We must ensure that the works are not overloaded and that the infrastructure is in place to take the development. I assure him that we shall not take the matter lightly.

Mr Jim Shannon: Is the Minister aware that the planning schedule for Tuesday week will confirm that all four outstanding applications for Kircubbin will be lodged with Ards Borough Council and will all be coming forward for approval? Can he state why that has happened? Is it because of the controversy made known to Ards Borough Council by the people of the area, or is it because the Department has not been doing its job correctly?

Mr Sam Foster: I understand that four applications have been deferred by Ards Borough Council. My Department will now consider those as a matter of urgency. I wish to emphasise again that we do not take those matters lightly. I would not accept that in my Planning Service. It is not inconsistent; it does not operate in a willy-nilly way.
My Department is not able to review applications that have already been refused on the grounds that the sewage works was overloaded. However, there is nothing to prevent someone submitting a new application for consideration, where people may feel aggrieved. I assure the Member, and this House, that my Planning Service does not take issues lightly.

EU Landfill Directive

Mr David Ford: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his plans to introduce legislation for the implementation of the European Union Landfill Directive.
(AQO959/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The Landfill Directive aims to prevent or reduce as far as possible the negative effects on the environment, as well as any risk to human health, from the landfilling of wastes. A key feature of the Directive is the reduction of methane emissions from landfill sites. It imposes progressive targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled, eventually reducing to 35% of the 1995 baseline levels.
The target for achieving that reduction is 2020, provided that advantage is taken of the four-year derogation available under the Directive. The percentage reductions required by the Directive are built into the Northern Ireland waste management strategy that was published by the Department of the Environment in March 2000.
In consultation with other parts of the United Kingdom, my Department is considering options for ensuring that those targets are met in Northern Ireland. I hope to consult widely on those issues later this year.
The remainder of the Directive is concerned with achieving common standards for the design, operation and aftercare of landfill sites. I shall be consulting on the proposal for implementing those aspects of the Directive as soon as possible after the consultation on biodegradable municipal waste.
Plans to introduce legislation to implement the Directive must await the outcome of those consultations. The additional resources that I have obtained in the Budget for 2001-02 will, however, help progress. Those resources will enable me to meet the commitment in the Programme for Government to progressively eliminate the backlog in transposing and implementing EU Directives.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ford, you have 20 seconds to put your question, and the Minister will then be likely to have to write to you.

Mr David Ford: I am disappointed, Mr Speaker, to hear that there is no definite timescale for the legislation. I had hoped that the Minister could have been a little more specific. Is he satisfied with the current movement on targets towards recycling and reuse? Is he also aware of the major public concern over the incineration question, which also needs to be addressed?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the time for questions to the Ministers is up. I have not been in the Chair, but I observe that we have barely reached question7. Without attributing that to anything in particular, I do feel that on productivity grounds, no particularly good use has been made of that time. I appeal to Members who have to take the Floor to be as concise as possible.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you referring to the responses by Ministers? That is what stretches out the time; that is where the problem lies.

Mr Speaker: As I said, I attribute my remarks to no one in particular. My remarks were meant as a caution to all Members who take the Floor.

Programme for Government

Mr Speaker: We now come to the motion on the Programme for Government. As Members will know from the Order Paper, this debate will start today and continue tomorrow.
No time limit has been set at this point for the debate, nor for contributions that Members will make. However, in view of what I have already said as regards questions and responses, perhaps some element of self-control will be of value, since this is a wide-ranging debate — and I suspect that many Members will wish to participate and to contribute. We shall debate until 6.00pm today and then adjourn. The debate will be resumed and completed tomorrow.
Motion made:
That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government agreed by the Executive. [The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister]

Rt Hon David Trimble: On 24 October 2000 the Deputy First Minister and I presented the Programme for Government in draft form to the Assembly and invited the Assembly’s views. We stressed the fact that the draft Programme for Government marked an important milestone in the development of our institutions and of a devolved, locally accountable Government here.
It represents our commitment as an Executive to effective and accountable Government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of people here. The draft Programme for Government has been debated by the Assembly and scrutinised by its Committees, and we are grateful for the positive and constructive feedback.
We believe that this process has signalled a maturing of the new politics that the agreement has achieved for Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government demonstrates that the four different parties that make up the Executive can reach agreement on priorities for Government and work constructively for the benefit of Northern Ireland.
Let there be no doubt about it: this programme is the work of all four parties in the Administration. The DUP may have the wrong particular way of communicating with the rest of the Admnistration, but they do participate, and their contribution is contained in this collective programme.
That process has shown that the Assembly and the Executive can work together effectively in a corporate manner to serve the people who elected us. The programme in draft form has been considered by the Civic Forum and by a wide range of organisations across the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. More than 150 bodies and individuals responded with detailed comments and suggestions.
This process has made it clear to us that there is strong endorsement, within the Assembly and without, of the priorities that we have identified for Government and of the actions that we plan to take. We, along with our Executive colleagues, greatly welcome this endorsement. However, the process also made it clear that there are many things that we could do to improve the content and presentation of the programme. We have listened to suggestions and have reflected many of them in the version of the programme that is being debated today. We shall consider many others as we refine the process of developing, consulting on and agreeing the Programme for Government in future years.
Our objective is to deliver a new beginning for Government in Northern Ireland in which the Government are responsive to the people that they serve. After so many years of direct rule and of decisions being taken by Ministers who had one eye on distant constituencies and the other on Westminster, we may be forgiven for noting that the observation that every country has the Government that it deserves is not always correct. However, it is clear, after 28 years of direct rule, that the people of Northern Ireland certainly deserve good Government by those whom they elect themselves.
More than that, they deserve a modern, open, efficient and locally accountable Government that meet their need. That is what the Programme for Government delivers. It is comprehensive and precise. It makes the detail of government more accessible to the public than ever before and goes further in this respect than similar documents in Scotland and Wales.
It clearly states what we want to achieve and the steps that we shall take. It is in effect the Executive’s manifesto — a set of pledges and commitments that underlines our desire to make a difference for the good of all. The largest addition to the document since the draft was presented to the Assembly in October reflects the inclusion of public service agreements — setting out the commitments made by each Department. Again, that is done in unprecedented detail.
The public service agreements represent a most important step in meeting our aim of bringing open and accountable government to the people of Northern Ireland. For the first time, Departments have been challenged to set out what will be achieved with the resources voted to them by the Assembly. It is vital for the Assembly and the public to have an opportunity to see exactly what the Executive Committee plans to provide across its spending programme in support of the overall Programme for Government.
The public service agreements are designed to do precisely this — to identify what Departments aim to achieve over the life of the Programme for Government. They do that by listing their detailed aims and the targets that they intend to achieve. They are designed to ensure a proper focus on outputs and outcomes. For too long, the focus in Departments, the media and among the public has been on inputs and resources — on how much we spend or how much it costs.
We want to change that focus and put the spotlight on outputs — on the results and on precisely what has been achieved. It is not only a question of how much it costs, but of what we get for our money, when it will be delivered and how good it is.
That is why we have set our plans out in some detail. By way of example, I shall highlight the public service agreement for the Department of Education to indicate what it includes. There are targets for increasing the percentage of children at age 11 who reach or exceed expected standards of literacy and numeracy for their age. The current targets, set out on page 103, are that 77% of pupils should achieve at least level 4 in Key Stage 2 in English, and 80% should achieve that level in maths by 2004. Those targets represent a 12% improvement in English since 1999 and an 8% improvement in maths.
Those are precise targets and commitments, and the Assembly and the public will be able to assess precisely what degree of success there is in achieving them. If they are achieved — fine. If there are difficulties in achieving them, we can focus on the question of what the problems are. That process, replicated throughout the Administration, should drive standards up and deliver more to the entire community.
The public service agreements also set out the steps that will be taken to ensure that targets will be achieved in the case of education. Those steps include the universal provision of pre-school education, support for underachieving schools and the provision of properly maintained classrooms with modern technology. Pledging to improve the education of our children is much more meaningful than simply promising to spend more money on education.
We could take the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment as another example. Its public service agreement contains targets to achieve increases in export sales growth and net employment among our larger companies. It sets out the actions that the Department will take to achieve those targets — actions that include promoting Northern Ireland as an inward investment location.
Where once our focus might have been on the numbers of companies setting up here and the costs of supporting them, it is now being switched to ensuring that those companies that are located in Northern Ireland contribute to the creation of wealth and jobs and to the strengthening of our economy.
Although there is much to do in the economy, there is also much that we can be proud of. Since 1995, we have created more than 60,000 additional jobs. That is a growth rate of 11%, which is faster than that in Great Britain. Our manufacturing output continues to forge ahead of the rate of increase in the rest of the United Kingdom. Manufacturing output here has increased by 31% since 1995. That is the case despite the high level of the pound and other difficulties. By comparison, in the rest of the United Kingdom the increase over the same period was 4% — a fraction of that we had achieved.
Of course, there remain many challenges — some are old, and some are new. We need to overcome them if we are to secure a competitive economy. We need to continue to work to reposition our economic base, and that means moving away from an over-dependence on the public sector and on slow growing or, indeed, declining, areas. In fact we need to switch from public to private and from low added value to higher added value areas.
That does not mean that we shrug off our important industrial heritage. Rather, it means making the most of opportunities that we are well placed to exploit. The real promise for the future comes in the newer sectors — whether making goods or producing services — and for businesses that can successfully supply those new sectors.
We need also to promote enterprise, innovation and creativity, as we strive to achieve a knowledge-based economy. That is why the programme commits us to promoting Northern Ireland as a world-class centre for e-commerce.
The programme also sets out specific actions in areas of support of our priority of — as the heading is — "Securing a Competitive Economy". Those actions include: promoting research and development in local companies; providing the facilities to sustain high technology and high value-added new start-up companies; and ensuring co-ordination and effectiveness of local enterprise support. It recognises the importance of instilling business awareness into our young people and commits us to developing an action plan to promote greater integration of enterprise into the curriculum in schools and colleges.
We still need to maintain a focus on unemployment. Unemployment here has fallen by half since its peak in 1993. It currently stands below 6% and is lower now than at any time since the 1970s. Over the same period, earnings increased by 17·6% in real terms, although, unfortunately, they remain below the UK average in private industry. Our unemployment rate is also still higher than the UK average, and we continue to face the problem of long-term unemployment.
Securing a competitive economy is one way to help ensure that unemployment continues on a downward path, but such progress is reliant on progress in other areas. Our actions to strengthen our economy and to create wealth and jobs cannot be divorced from other priorities. They are linked to our commitments under the heading of "Growing as a Community" to tackle poverty and social exclusion. They are also linked under the heading of "Investing in Education and Skills" to our plans to improve our education standards and skill levels, and to help the unemployed find work.
Providing jobs is the surest way to create a more inclusive and equal society. Providing high quality skilled jobs is even better. To achieve this, we must ensure that the skills and qualifications of our people continue to rise towards a level that matches the best in the world.
Already we have seen that companies will move here to tap available skills. Shortages of key skills in rapidly expanding sectors are the most important factor in holding back growth.
For those reasons, economic development, skills training and education must go hand in hand. That is one example, albeit an important one, where cross-cutting themes and joined-up government are essential. That is why those themes are heavily emphasised in the Programme for Government.
I am disappointed by the Alliance Party’s amendment, which gives that party’s reasons for rejecting the Programme for Government. Alliance has had more than five months to consider the Programme for Government, and I am surprised that it has arrived at that conclusion. In October, the Alliance Party put forward its proposals for the Programme for Government, but in many areas its ideas were close to those of the parties that were involved in the drafting.
We have also heard from other Members, particularly through the Committees, and the overwhelming consensus was that the Programme for Government provides an excellent basis for the work of the Government and for the long and difficult process of developing good government for Northern Ireland. Of course, there were ideas for changes, differences of opinion regarding priorities, and instances where Members would like to see more being done. However, those who were consulted in the Assembly recognised that the Programme for Government was a realistic, organised and costed programme based on the reality that budgets are finite.
People can say that more could be done, but there are no simple, facile answers. In the Programme for Government, the Executive have mapped out a wide-ranging approach and demonstrated the linkages between programmes and policies by setting out their details, actions and timetables. Detailed equality schemes and new TSN action plans have also been set out.
Why has there been silence from the Alliance Party? It has not given costed proposals. Where are its solutions? It is easy to criticise, but now is the time for a debate and for working together.
The Programme for Government represents the Executive’s prospectus for a new Northern Ireland — a region that is moving towards a new and inclusive stability where all can realise their full potential. It also represents our determination to deliver that in an open and accountable way. The Programme for Government and the public service agreements set out in detail what the Executive will do, at what cost and by when. They represent our commitment to open and accountable government, to addressing the challenges that Northern Ireland faces and to moving forward for the good of the whole community.

Mr Sean Neeson: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add
"declines to approve the Northern Ireland Executive Programme for Government because it does not properly address the deep divisions and inequalities in this society and therefore does not deliver the new beginning envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement."
I am surprised that the First Minister is surprised that the Alliance Party has tabled an amendment. The First Minister knows that the Alliance Party has raised many issues of inclusion in the House over the months, and it is my intention to raise those issues today.
There has never been a greater need for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sectarianism has never been more openly rampant than it is now, and the need to deal with those problems has never been greater. Although there are those who try to put forward the idea of Northern Ireland being two communities and who try to perpetuate the idea of the two communities, we have to recognise that Northern Ireland has moved forward from that. It is now a much more complex matter, and it is not just a question of Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists. There are those who believe and those who do not believe. There is a growing increase in ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland. All those issues have to be taken on board.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Never has such a great hurt been felt by many sections of the community than at present. The feeling exists that some are more equal than others. I refer to the Programme for Government. On page 14 it states:
"It will take generations for much of the pain and hurt of our history to be handled. However that should not lessen our commitment to work together to find reconciliation."
On page 26 it says
"We will place renewed emphasis on the need for all our people to work together. We will examine the impact of existing patterns of housing and services such as education and seek to respond positively where people wish to live and learn closer together. We are also aware that prejudice is not confined to religious sectarianism and that ethnic and other minority groups are often the victims of intolerance. We will work to reduce all forms of prejudice."
Those are fine words indeed, but words are one thing and commitment is another. The reality is that the Programme for Government has only seven measures to deal with the division in our community and four of those deal with language rights. However, what is of greater importance, human rights or language rights? I pose that question to the Executive today.
The First Minister knows well that over the past year the Alliance Party has been working on the major problem of hate crimes in NorthernIreland — he has answered questions in the House on the matter. What will the First Minister and the Executive do about the extension of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to NorthernIreland, which will deal specifically with racially motivated crimes?
The extension of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 specifically prohibits sectarian chanting. Last Wednesday there were disgraceful scenes at WindsorPark when NeilLennon was picked on because of the football club for which he plays. That cannot be tolerated in a decent society. What are the Executive going to do about that? The problem of sectarianism in sport is not mentioned anywhere in the Programme for Government.
Many Members are committed to the principle of integrated education. The First Minister quite rightly spoke about the targets for education and the provision of facilities and resources. However, targets for creating integrated education, whether through the building of new schools or through developing integrated schools through transformation, are absent in the Programme for Government.
There is nothing significant in the Programme for Government on the need for cross-departmental action to deal with paramilitary flags and graffiti. A private Member’s motion is currently before the Business Committee on that matter, yet the First Minister should know that one Department is passing the problem to another. They are simply passing the buck, yet, year after year communities, cities and towns are blighted by the erection of paramilitary flags and by intimidation. That, in turn, creates a hostile environment for many people who are being intimidated by Republican or Loyalist graffiti. The Assembly should be dealing with those issues.
The Alliance Party also supports demands from the Mixed Marriage Association to try and develop more programmes for integrated housing. I take on board the First Minister’s earlier remarks. It is not a question of waving a magic wand.
I realise that there are problems, but I ask the Committee of the Centre to investigate the barriers faced by people in mixed marriages in Northern Ireland and to consider how we might bring about greater housing integration in Northern Ireland. Not only do we have working-class ghettos, we have middle-class ghettos; we even have upper-class ghettos. The Assembly should address such a serious issue.
The core of our argument is that all Executive policies should be proofed on the extent to which they promote sharing rather than separation. That should be at the heart of what the Assembly does. We need neutral symbols — as an Assembly, we successfully developed the flax flower as our symbol. We must get away from the sectarian slogans that have created so much division in our society. I have spoken about the problem of sectarianism in sport; we can bring about change. Although I disagreed with the decision of the Belfast Giants to go ahead with their matches last Friday and Saturday night, ice hockey is an example of how the communities in Northern Ireland can be brought together to celebrate and cheer on one sporting event.
People in Northern Ireland have been accused of being inward-looking, but the development of the Assembly has created new opportunities. I welcome the establishment of the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, but we need to establish not only bilateral, but multilateral relationships with other parts of the European Union. On the whole, the Programme for Government looks at east-west and North/South issues, but there are opportunities to look beyond Northern Ireland. I also hope that our relationship with the United States can be further developed. It might be just an oversight, but some of the North/South projects that appeared in the original document, such as lecturer exchanges and research collaboration for business, are no longer there. Ministers should let us know whether there have been changes.
I shall not be totally negative; there are many good things in the Programme for Government. I have already mentioned the establishment of the office in Brussels. I welcome the Executive’s strong commitment to e-government, which is now the subject of a major Bill. I also welcome many of the economic policies. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee hopes to publish a response to ‘Strategy 2010’, and there is much in that to be welcomed. The increase in job opportunities is also to be welcomed.
Much more attention and resources should be devoted to improving community relations in Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government states that the Executive are committed to improving community relations, but there are few actual policy proposals. Northern Ireland is a divided society. It is, therefore, vital that the Assembly take the lead in trying to end those divisions: that outlook should be at the core of all Government policies. That is a challenge that we all must face up to.

Mr Sam Foster: The Programme for Government is a much-needed document for the public service. It sets out the key issues that we must address so as to improve life for all people in Northern Ireland. I fully endorse it.
I shall focus on the significance that is being placed on environmental issues. When the Assembly previously debated the draft document, I emphasised the crucial importance of the environment, especially for a healthy community and for a competitive economy. That aspect was, and still is, reflected. If we are all to take ownership of the Programme for Government, it must reflect the views of elected representatives and the wider community. Therefore, I have carefully considered the responses given by consultees.
I have also had constructive contact with the Environment Committee. I thank its members for the helpful way in which that business was conducted. When I began to look at the comments from the Environment Committee and the wider public, it was interesting that there was a significant degree of similarity in the issues that were raised. That reflects the concerns that people have about environmental issues.
The need for sustainability to be a key cross-cutting theme in the Programme for Government was a major concern to both the Committee and to the wider public. Many felt that that important issue needed to run through all the documents, thus integrating social, economic and environmental objectives so as to maximise gains in both the quality of life and in its well-being. Furthermore, references to sustainability in the final version of the Programme for Government have been revised to reflect its importance as a major cross-cutting theme. The funding increase for environmental services in the Budget is testimony to the priority that the Executive have given to that area.
Concerns were also raised about the need to protect the built heritage. That is of vital importance. During this year I have been able to secure additional funding towards the payment of historic building grants.
The need to examine the planning process was also an issue. Northern Ireland needs an effective Planning Service, and for that reason the Programme for Government clearly says that my Department will carry out a review of the systems for operational planning policy, development planning and development control by the end of December 2001. It is also our aim to eliminate the backlog of planning applications by December 2002.
Those are some of the targets included in my Department’s public service agreement. Those agreements are a new feature of the Programme for Government. They will enable a more open approach to departmental business and enable both Members of this Assembly and the general public to see the specific actions that are proposed.
The Department of the Environment’s public service agreement includes other actions and targets. I cannot mention all of them, but I shall refer to a few. I intend to proceed with steps to eliminate the backlog in the transposition of EU environmental Directives. That is necessary not only to meet European standards and requirements, but, more importantly, to protect the environment. There is also much work to be done in assisting district councils and implementing their plans for waste management.
Another area in which I take a close interest is road safety. The continuing high level of deaths and injuries on the roads is of great concern. I shall launch a new road safety strategy shortly, but road safety is not just a matter for my Department. I look forward to receiving assistance from Roads Service, the RUC and the Department for Regional Development. We all have a responsibility to reduce the number of accidents on the road.
The Programme for Government gives us the best opportunity that we have had for many years to introduce policies and take actions that accurately reflect the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure Members that my Department will play an active part in that process and that I shall work closely with all other relevant Departments to drive forward the key cross-cutting aims identified in the document.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I speak on behalf of my party and myself.
In introducing the debate, the First Minister spoke of a new beginning. He also said that there was much to do to improve the programme. I hope that the great detail in the document will be followed very closely in respect of its intended delivery. However, I would also like to think that, in view of experiences gained, new emergencies and new matters arising, it would be flexible enough to take on board such new dimensions as may crop up in future.
Although the document is a vade mecum of politics in Northern Ireland, I would like to think that it will be subject to proper adjustment as experience is gained, and as new problems and new issues come to our notice. It is very much an excellent basis from which a new process is emerging.
It covers all possible aspects of life in Northern Ireland — economic, social and environmental — with the exception of the question of the security situation. Our communities suffer as a result of paramilitary activities, drug rings and other protection rackets. That is why I am slightly surprised by the amendment tabled by the Alliance Party, and all its references to deep divisions and inequalities. Many of the remedies suggested as being required to address those issues are security-orientated, and security matters are neither in the Assembly’s remit nor in this form of devolution. However, it is to be hoped that, matters improving, they will be in future.
In response to many of the comments made by the leader of the Alliance Party, those deep divisions and inequalities in our society are best addressed by the example that we in this House, as representatives across the total spectrum of political life, give society? Our example would be the best guarantee and the best security that the divisions are healed sooner rather than later, and that the inequalities are addressed.
This society’s inequalities concerning social class, gender and disabilities, among others, are very much addressed in the Programme for Government. New issues have been brought to light, examined and programmed for. I am, therefore, a wee bit surprised. One could be forgiven for thinking that there was an element of opportunism in the tabling of such an amendment. It is a direct negative, in that it calls for the Assembly to decline the document. Perhaps its main purpose was that members of that party would have the opportunity to get in early to make speeches on the matter.
Leaving that aside for the moment, it would be very tempting to take on, as it were, all 10 Departments. However, that would be ludicrous and detrimental to other Members who wish to speak.
I would, however, like to address an issue that is mainly the concern of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I do not wish to talk about it in detail, but I do wish to talk about the theme that should come through. We have had, quite correctly, debate after debate on the whole problem of sustaining the farmer in the rural community. I have said time and time again in the House that that applies to the whole of Northern Ireland, outside one or two major conurbations. We are a rural community with a basis in the rural society. Farmers do not just produce an income. They also sustain that environment for all of us now and for posterity. We must adopt an entirely new approach to that. Although the Department in question — with all the pride we derive in that respect — is headed "Agriculture and Rural Development", its emphasis has always been mainly on agriculture, and "Rural Development" was added on later.
I would like to think that the Department is sustaining the entire rural community. There needs to be a cross-departmental commitment, to driving forward a new concept of rural sustainabilty as part of our overall handling of the rural community. That would contribute to sustainable improvements in economic, environmental and social conditions, while creating new ways in which to address the shortfall in farming activity and profitability. Over the past number of years, that shortfall has been dramatic and has reduced farming activity and profitability to 75% of what it was. That profit will be further reduced as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
Local regeneration programmes are good and valid, and they have accomplished a great deal. It is important that the funding that was distributed last January be sustained until the delivery of the new tranche of funding if local regeneration, and the creation of jobs, is to continue. There needs to be a better concept of how to package a complete cross-departmental deal to renew and revitalise the rural communities. Rural people are less inclined to be skilled, and re-employed, than anyone else. Rural women, in particular, are less likely to find employment outside their farming communities. We have to address that problem.
New businesses are often set up, but there is a narrow-mindedness about their potential. They are directed towards local niche markets or, at best, something with a general Northern Irish identity. Not enough is given to encourage new rural industries and innovations to look outwards to international markets, to get access to existing distribution channels and to create new ones.
On the question of sustaining the income of farmers, in particular small farmers, I have long advocated that dependence on profitability based on the food-price structure is neither the right approach nor the only one. We must embrace the concept of creating a separate income to supplement the profit gained from farming, if it is inadequate, so that the farming community can be sustained. If that is regarded as a social benefit, then so be it, but the cash provided to those people should be seen as a special form of social commitment.
The Minister dealt with the matter of rural transport in the many questions that he received and in his address on the issue. Let it suffice to say that a very limited number of areas in Northern Ireland have access to railways and very few areas have access to dual carriageways. In my constituency, there is not one single foot of dual carriageway. We need to make a major input into infrastructural improvements in the entire south-east of Ulster, west of the Bann and other areas.
It is important that the impact of the shortfall in departmental assessments over the past 30years be studied in depth, not only in the context of the environmental and regional development issues of transport and railways, which are very obvious, but in the context of health, education and other areas.
We have an enormous deficit to make up, and we cannot afford to make up such a deficit in the near future. It will not be made up unless something dramatic is done now. It is therefore incumbent upon the Executive to pressurise the central funding authorities, which have so much largesse it is flowing over. They have so many billions in surplus that they will not be able to give it all away. They cannot give it away in this week’s Budget because there is so much of it.
However, part of the reasons for that surplus is our deficit. A tremendous effort should now be made — I am sure that it is already being made. We should all support our getting a special modernisation fund that will enable roads, water, sewerage, education, health and all other services to be updated in an effort to reduce that deficit. If that does not happen, we shall be looking at Programmes for Government yearly and seeing the same shortfalls that we are starting off with today. Unless we address that huge deficit, we shall make life very difficult for ourselves.
In his introduction, the First Minister gave substantive and encouraging statistics on a range of matters, such as the fall in unemployment to almost record levels, the 31% increase in productivity and the overall economic uplift. That is all well and good, but in order to sustain it in the new competitive world we must be at the forefront of modernisation. Unless we have additional funding, we shall not be able to do that.
I jump tracks, Mr Deputy Speaker, to touch on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I used to criticise severely the peripatetic Education Ministers on one of my hobby horses — museums and regional strategy. Some people think that museums do not reflect our culture. Museums are the protectors of our culture, its expression and display. I hope that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will soon give us a policy that will have some funding. So far as I can see, there is not one mention of the word "museum" in the booklet. Nevertheless, museums are a fundamental cultural facility. It is not an issue that excites people and causes high blood pressure in debate, but there is a fundamental requirement for display. I have seen how exhibits, set side by side with historical facts, can overcome and explain some of the divisions referred to in the amendment. A new interpretation can heal and help divisions to diminish, if not disappear.
On education, I was disappointed that the Programme for Government uses the words "to sustain current levels". That should not be our objective. Our objective should be to improve current levels because we keep criticising them. We may not always be able to achieve our goal, but at least let us target those levels and try to improve them. One commitment is to reduce the number of temporary classrooms in post-primary schools. However, the programme that was announced last Thursday did not materially reduce the number of temporary classrooms in post-primary schools — in fact, it hardly touched on them. In my constituency established schools are being starved of funds. However, that is a subject for detailed debate and should not be addressed today.
Where the Department of the Environment is concerned, I wish to address the issue of school buses. Surely to God, it should be Government policy that every child who pays for his or her transport can have a seat; otherwise there will be a tragic accident from which we shall have to try to learn some lessons. If we have such a tragedy, we know what the lessons will be. I ask the Minister to consider that as a matter of urgency.
Right across Northern Ireland there are gross inconsistencies in planning decisions and, indeed, within divisions of Planning Service. If the Minister is in any doubt about that — and I am sure that he is not — I could take him around any given area and show him gross inconsistencies that are not evident to the public.
For the promotion of tourism, I would like to think that at last there will be joined-up government among the rural development programme, Planning Service and the Tourist Board.
At the moment, they are frustrating one another and, therefore, obstructing those who are trying to provide, albeit in a small way, the infrastructure of guest houses and other facilities. We are trying to revitalise the rural community through alternative outlets, and one of the best ways to do that is through sustainable, new, tourist-orientated developments, which can also be enjoyed by local people.
On the subject of health, many questions are hanging and many hopes are placed on the Hayes review. Everything is predicated upon Dr Maurice Hayes’s report on acute services, so it is almost a barrier to receiving information. I hope that, in creating the Programme for Government, someone has considered the possible outcomes of the Hayes review, the review of ambulance services and — and this is away behind — the review of maternity services. We need to see how much those changes are going to cost; I do not think that the costs are taken into account in the Programme for Government. If the costs are not included, the developments will not happen, and if those do not happen, there is no point in having a review in the first place. I hope that the Department of Health will take that on board as a weighty issue.
Another area of health that gravely concerns me that has been getting more difficult over the years is the care of the elderly. Regardless of statistics from trusts and boards, the facts speak for themselves. The amount of care we provide for the elderly is grossly inadequate. We should be ashamed of ourselves, as a society, that we cannot return some measure of care. It is not very much to ask for help for perhaps an extra hour a day with lighting a fire, washing the dishes or making a bed. Given all the affluence that is coming upon us, can this society not do more to give those people more peace and stability in their declining years?
On the issue of regional development, I have already mentioned that we must calculate our infrastructure funding properly. We do not have enough money to do that. We should not pretend to ourselves that we have enough money — we do not, so we need to get it from some other source. Usually we look to Europe, but I think that that is a "well-milked cow", if Members will forgive the expression. The obvious source of the money, which we paid for and were denied over the years, is the Treasury in London. That should be our primary target.
I am aware that I have taken more time than I should have done to address the issue, but with such a broad canvas to fill, matters must be skipped through. We have a new beginning here, as the First Minister said in his introduction. It is exciting to have this vade mecum of politics, which we can finger through to see where we are at any given time, in any given year. I hope that it is not only reactive to our current problems, but that it will be proactive in anticipating problems, and will be amenable and changeable enough to take on board any issues that circumstances may throw up — not least in the farming and rural communities. I support the Programme for Government, and I reject the unwarranted criticism in the amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I shall make a few remarks, first as Chairperson of the Committee and then as leader of my party. The main point in this draft Programme for Government which concerned my Committee, when it was committed to us for our approval, was the commitment to rural proofing all Government policy.
The Committee welcomed the principle of rural proofing, but questioned how that could work in practice. At many Committee meetings, we pressed the departmental officials to define rural proofing and to define how Departments, other than the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, would be able to conform to rural proofing.
At a meeting last Friday, officials offered us what they called a working definition of rural proofing. It contained very little indeed — it was a two-page presentation. We were as far forward, after reading the two pages, as we had ever been. At this stage, less than four weeks before the proposed start date for rural proofing, the Department of Agriculture has no real blueprint for it. That is what we have concluded. There was general information, but it did not discuss how the job was to be done.
The main proposal that the Committee saw in that piece of paper was that Departments were to be self- regulatory. There was to be no person or Committee to regulate them. I say to members of other Committees that the Agriculture Committee can only deal with matters relevant to the Department of Agriculture. We shall certainly scrutinise — as we have done heretofore — the actions of the Department of Agriculture. Other departmental Committees may not be committed to rural proofing, but if they are, they will have to play a unique role in ensuring that their respective Departments conform to rural proofing requirements.
There is little change from the draft as it first appeared. However, there were two new actions mentioned to the Committee. Members saw that the draft programme contained no action points aimed at addressing farm structure or size. Members specifically asked for a scheme to encourage our young people onto the farms. Although additional action — provided by looking into the future, and at the Department’s expectations — falls well short of what the farming community needs, we at least have a sort of nod in the right direction that there may be a pension or retirement scheme.
I urge upon the Minister, and the vision group that she has set up, the need to keep young people on the farms. To do that, those who have given their lives to farming should be adequately provided for in relation to the rainy and stormy day that has indeed come to them.
The second addition is the commitment to introduce — and I know that this lies near to the heart of Mr McGrady, who spoke immediately before me — the decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.
There is a serious crisis in agriculture, and we pray God that it will not continue and spread as it has done in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we should also recognise the serious plight of our fishing fleet. It is as near to catastrophe as it can be. It is in grave danger of being wrecked on the rocks for ever. That is not my language; it is the language across the board of all who know anything about the fishing industry.
We entered the Common Market, as it was then called, with the highest strength that any Government or nation ever entered the Common Market. We controlled 75% of all the fishing waters around Europe. We do not control any of them today. We do not even have part of a dam that we can sail across and say belongs to us.
Our fishermen have been shut out of fishing waters and have therefore had to change their employment. They now fish for prawns instead of white fish. We are told that that will save the industry, but when our fishermen fish for prawns they scoop up the juvenile white fish, which are thrown back into the waters, dead. The very programme that was supposed to save fishing is destroying it. We have a plight and I do not see any attempt to remedy it. The fishing community is in a very sad state today.
We need to make it known that, under the decommissioning scheme, a person who has kept his boat up to standard and received grants for doing so will have to pay back every grant that he has ever received. When he pays that back, he will have nothing. Therefore, we should not say that there should be a decommissioning scheme. Those are not my words; they are the words spoken by two organisations that represent the whole fishing industry when they addressed the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on Friday.
I note that Mr McGrady is nodding his head in agreement. He knows this story better than anyone else in this House. We are in a very serious position and we need to face up to it. There is no use telling people that we have sympathy for them — we have to be practical. There is a simple remedy that could start now. That remedy is a tie-up scheme whereby boats that cannot fish now are tied up for a season and the fishermen are paid full wages so that they can keep their trained sailors or fishermen and start again when the season changes.
That seems to be the right thing to do. The European Union has a scheme — all the work is done — so why do we not have that scheme? The Scots have greater clout with the UK Government in political matters than we have, and they are now calling for the same scheme. Our only hope is that we can get in on that scheme on their skirts. If we do not, it will be curtains for the fishing community.
There is nothing else that those men can do. They cannot quit and get a job where they are. All that they will be offered in Kilkeel is breaking stones. Many of them are now doing that. They are convicts in the sad arena of their unemployment through no fault of their own. Those are matters to which we need to attend.
I want to take off my hat as Chairperson of the Committee and make some other comments. No country can achieve reasonable stability until its people trust that stability can be achieved.
I am not like the leader of the Alliance Party — I have a mandate from the people. I have submitted myself repeatedly to the electorate. The House must recognise, whether it likes it or not, that the majority of the Unionist population are very unhappy — and that is a very mild term — about what is happening in our country. They do not have faith in what is going on.
There was an argument here today between Mr McCartney and Mr Mallon about what they had said. I keep abreast of what people say — any politician who does not have a good filing cabinet of what his opponents say is not fit to be a politician. The Deputy First Minister is recorded in ‘The Irish Times’ of 16 November 1998 as having said that
"If, by the agreed deadline of April 2000, Sinn Féin’s allies in the IRA have not completed the decommissioning of their arsenals, the SDLP will remove from office those who would have so blatantly dishonoured their obligations."
I find that strange, having heard today’s exchange. Unionists in Northern Ireland are not fools. They have been described as bigots and worse, but the majority of Unionists understand what is happening in this country. The First Minister made a very pleasing statement today —[Interruption]

Mr Alban Maginness: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the Programme for Government. The Member is discussing matters far removed from that. Should he not be brought to order and told to discuss the Programme for Government?

Sir John Gorman: I am sure that Dr Paisley will come to the main burden of his speech immediately.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is strange that the learned Gentleman should take me to task for what I am saying, when I am commenting on a speech that was made by the First Minister. He must not have heard the First Minister’s speech, and there are many —[Interruption]

Mr Alban Maginness: I raise again my point of order.

Sir John Gorman: Dr Paisley should move to the Programme for Government.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am talking about the Programme for Government. I am doing so in a way that it goes to the quick of the questioner. He is sore about it. I can assure him that he will be sorer before I finish. I am sticking to the point — I am sticking to it so well that it is sticking in the Member’s gullet. That is his trouble.
The Programme for Government should establish the basis for good government. The First Minister made a long speech today that had nothing to do with the programme for future Government, but he praised what he said he had already done. Mr Maginness did not get up off his backside to call the First Minister to order then, because it was well pleasing to him to hear such things.
I shall deal with the Programme for Government. The programme must rest on certain bases. First, it must rest on a basis of stability. Of course, the hon Gentleman believes that his allies in IRA/Sinn Féin can hold on to their weaponry and that we shall still have a good basis for stability. He believes that the RUC needs to be denuded and destroyed, and that then we shall have a good basis for stability. He believes many other things that I, and the people who sent me here, do not believe. He can make his own speech and defend what he believes.
Unless we have stability we cannot have a prosperous country in which our people can earn their livelihood, take their children to school, and live and grow up in a place where there is real peace. Northern Ireland is labelled peaceful, but is in fact in internecine war. The events of the past days surely send out a warning to what we may have in the future. We are now on the tomorrow of a bombing in London. Before the end of the week there may be many more acts of atrocity, and every one of them will lead to instability in the Province.

Sir John Gorman: I have been giving you quite a lot of rope. You must realise that we are debating the Programme for Government. Please address that now.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am setting the scene for what should be available if we are to have any government at all. If one does not have the right basis, one cannot move forward. Some people do not want to talk about those matters because they are unpleasant to them, but we had better face them. The man in the street knows that.
I shall give the House an illustration. The First Minister told us about all those things, but he missed out education completely. I wonder why. If we are going to have proper government in this country, and a role for government, we must have proper education for our children. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Integrated education.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Integrated education or whatever education you like — that is not my issue today.

Sir John Gorman: Dr Paisley, please address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish you would direct Members not to talk from a sedentary position. They should address their comments through the Chair after rising to speak in the proper way.

Sir John Gorman: I fully agree with what the Member says, and I ask Members to adhere to that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Surely we should all agree that every section of the community should have the benefits of education, and that education should be fairly administered. It is not so in the Province. There are independent Christian schools, to which the Department of Education refuses to give one penny piece. That is a fact — and I happen to know the facts.
The Sinn Féin/IRA Minister recently announced how he was going to package the money for the good government that we are told we have. Every day I come to the House I pass Strandtown Primary School. I know that school well — three of my children and my good wife received their primary education there. The Minister speaks of good education and a role for the Government, but let us hear what Dr Desmond Hamilton, the principal of that school, had to say when he saw the money that is to be handed out to other schools but not to the state schools:
"We are the closest primary school to Stormont but out of our eight mobile classrooms, five are not fit for rearing chickens. They are in a deplorable condition and in urgent need of replacement."
The state sector of education is no longer a Protestant sector. There is as much integration in state schools as there is in the so-called integrated schools.
The Minister is going to hand out £25·5 million to the Roman Catholic schools and £14·3 million to the integrated schools. The hon Lady has been crying here about integrated education. It represents only 4% of the children, yet it is going to get £14·3 million.
The state schools, which have mobile classrooms not fit for chickens, are going to get the miserable sum of £12·7 million, although they have 45% of the entire school population. Then we are told that this Government is a good Government. We are told that this is the Government that we should sponsor and help.
However, when we look at the figures, we also discover that the Member who has some connections in his previous offices with the city of Londonderry hands the vast amount of money to Roman Catholic schools in that city. Those are the facts. Even some of the Official Unionists were worried about those facts; even they got disturbed. Surely those are matters that have to do with government and with the good government of this country.
Where are the people who are all for fair play to others? I have not heard a squeak from the SDLP or the Women’s Coalition about that. I have not heard a squeak from anybody but those on the Unionist side of the House about this. Why? Because an attempt is being made to paint a picture that is not one of reality.
I trust that if we get good government it will be fair government that will give to each section of the community what it deserves and is entitled to have. If things had gone the other way and a Minister had got up and given that large percentage to state education and not given as much to integrated education which got more than its fair share, there would have been an uproar in the House. However, that it is not so today. The First Minister wanted to sweep that matter under the carpet so that it might all be forgotten.
No, things are not happy in this Province. The ordinary Unionist voter understands that, and I am thankful that some day at the polls — whether in April or May or after the marching season matters not — a stop will be put to surrender concessions. The Ulster people are not going to change. They have made up their minds that the time has come for those who say they should be in Government to carry responsibility. They are not fit to be in Government if they do not.
We are reaping the sad sowing of what people hailed in this House as liberation day — a day of jubilee — but this has been a day of the forging of chains, of the breaking of oaths and of dishonesty. There has already been a sad reaping, and there will be an even sadder reaping.
I wish to discuss hospitals for a moment. All Members should take a day off and visit some hospitals. If they did, they would see what the doctors, nurses, patients and the general public must cope with. They would see what distracted families must endure when they take their sick relatives to hospital for admission. They are sent away, because operations cannot be done. Some people have been sent away three times. How do they feel? Some have gone through the motions of preparing for an operation three times. On each occasion a doctor suddenly appeared and told them that the operation could not be done and that they would be called again. That has been repeated again and again.
Members should sit in waiting rooms and listen to the general public’s complaints. We should listen to what the doctors say. We should speak to those hard worked nurses and attendants. Then we would realise that all is not well in the hospital system and Health Service. When doctors and specialists tell us that they leave Northern Ireland, it is time for us to abandon the programme that we think is going to save our Health Service and adopt one that really can.
We live in days in which we have large problems. Those problems will not go away unless there is dedication, hard work and a plan that at least has some hope of success. To keep pursuing a plan that has not produced the goods is folly. At the very least we must have a plan that gives us some hope at the end of a hard, rocky and mountainous road.
The First Minister was very hard on my son today when he asked questions. I have the Civic Forum’s report. It is an elaborate book printed on the finest art paper, which must have cost thousands of pounds to produce. I have not seen printing like it before.
The Assembly — the elected body — cannot print its reports on solid art paper. However, the Civic Forum can. It was not dealing with a Programme for Government; it was dealing only with a response to a draft programme, and yet it requires all this expense.
At the end of the report — and I am sure the Women’s Coalition will welcome it — the Civic Forum includes many lovely pages on which to make notes. Therefore, one only gets the content, but pages for your notes — all on the finest art paper. Yet the First Minister complains when a Member of the House asks questions.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for his point about the notes at the back of the report being handy for the Women’s Coalition. We appreciate the opportunity to write, learn and tell as much as we can.
Is the Civic Forum document not proof of the valuable work that that body is doing, in that the amount of detail it went into helped our deliberations on the Programme for Government?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I have never listened to such rubbish. I was not talking about the report’s contents; I was talking about the printer’s work. Does the Forum’s report have to be printed on the finest art paper?
I wonder whether the Member, if she is a candidate at the next election, will tell of the day she fought a lonely battle for art paper for the report of the Civic Forum.

Sir John Gorman: We are getting a little far away from the Programme for Government.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: You allowed her to do it.

Sir John Gorman: Dr Paisley, we have only until 6.00 pm this evening, which is another 25 minutes or so. Will you — I am not by any means saying that you must stop — bring your remarks to a close fairly soon and allow at least one other person to speak.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I asked earlier what the time limit was for speaking and was told that there was no limit. Therefore, I can do what we do in the British House of Commons in a similar debate. We travel from Beer-sheba to Dan and from Dan to Beer-sheba, and I intend to do that. I intend to make my remarks on this Government. After all, this Government should be prepared to stand up to scrutiny.
Surely we should be allowed to debate and discuss this wonderful blueprint for future blessings on a land flowing with milk and honey. Why do you, Mr Deputy Speaker, want to stop me? You once stopped me when you wore a certain uniform — you stopped me dead in my tracks. However, I am not going to be stopped tonight; I am going to go on. I digressed to give Ms Morrice an opportunity to defend fine art paper for the report of the Forum, but that is past and gone.

Ms Jane Morrice: I referred to its contents.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I can assure the Member that there is no art in its contents. She should read it. She must have a poor view of art. I may not have a very high view of art, but I have some view of it, for my daughter is an artist, as the Member well knows. I say to the Member that I see no art in this document — [Interruption].
I am going to go on, and I am not going to be distracted by the Women’s Coalition. I have given that party enough publicity, and I want to go on.

Sir John Gorman: So long as you go on, Dr Paisley, on the Programme for Government.

A Member: Which page is the Member on?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am on pages 1 to 205. I do not know what stupidity this House can have in its membership when it actually asks me what page I am on — I have not even completed my introduction. I have no intention of saying, "Finally, brethren". The people who sit here are not my brethren, so I could not address them as such.
I was referring to the fact that you did once stop me in my tracks, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got going again, and I am going to get going again now on this matter.
Mr McGrady said that we have one shortage, which is money, and he was absolutely right. Those things cannot be retrieved without finance. Unfortunately for us, those people who negotiated with Europe were never able to entend to us the benefits that came from Europe to the other part of this island, which got £5 million every day from European coffers. That, of course, has ceased. Anybody could work a good economy if they had £5 million put into their pocket every day. If we had had £5 million put into our pocket every day, and if that money had been well spent and invested, Ulster would be a different place to live in today.
We have to look at where we can get the money. First, charity begins at home, so there could be a pruning of over-government in Northern Ireland. There is far too much government in Northern Ireland. For instance, there are 10 Departments in the Assembly, and we need only five. We have a superabundance of Ministers, and yet when there is an agricultural crisis not one can be spared to deputise for the Minister of Agriculture when she is away.
I do not know why another Minister cannot stand in for an absent Colleague, as is done in other places. Here, Ministers cannot even cover for a Colleague who has to attend to something of vital importance. I am not criticising the Agriculture Minister for wanting to go to a meeting with the Prime Minister about the crisis; I am sure that she needed to go. However, there was no reason why Mr Nesbitt who is, I understand, a very capable man — he thinks he is, anyway, and he seems quite happy with my eulogy — could not have made a statement. Mr Nesbitt and Mr Haughey serve in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, so why could one of them not have made a statement on agriculture? After all, they have very little to do; they do not have a portfolio.
Northern Ireland is over-governed and the time has come when the Executive need to cut out the nonsense of printing reports on art paper and reduce the amount of money that is spent. Today, I learned that the Assembly is going to enlarge its camp. It is going to lengthen its cords and strengthen its stakes. Another property will be taken over because, it is said, the Assembly does not have enough room. Where will it end?
Northern Ireland needs money. There are untapped benefits in Europe, including agrimoney that we should have had long ago. The money was not drawn down from Europe, because the Government were so ham-fisted. However, because of the foot-and-mouth plague, the Government are going to draw it down now. There are opportunities to get large sums of money from Europe that could be used in the agriculture industry if the United Kingdom Government were prepared to bring in match funding.
I met a group of men today from the abattoir and meat-processing industries. Their plants are closed down; their rate bill is £500 per day. They do not want to sack every member of staff, because, if they do so, they will put families in jeopardy. If they reopen, their whole business would be in jeopardy.
There is an opportunity to get money in Europe to help such people to stay in business until they are able to do business. Where is the compensation that we hear talked about? Others have lost out and others still will lose out. If the machinery of agriculture — Northern Ireland’s largest industry — is destroyed, how will the story end? The Assembly should demand that the Government show the will to ensure that the industry is not destroyed. That responsibility rests with those in the Departments who know the story and know how much money is needed.
I agree with Mr McGrady. It is vital that the necessary money be made available to keep the industry ticking over. We hope that the industry will get back into gear, although we cannot be sure that it will. The fishing industry has the same requirements. Every possible European subsidy should be investigated. Northern Ireland deserves to have them, and they should be exploited to the hilt.
Matters such as planning concern all of us. I do not know how other Members feel but I felt very sore when I walked up a farm laneway with a man who had borne the burden and heat of the day in the farming life of our Province and he told me that he was not allowed to build a house for his daughter on any part of his land. His wife had doctors’ certificates that stated that she needed her daughter to live beside her, but still they were turned down. I could spend hours bringing records to the House to show that that scenario is repeated over and over again.
That was on land near Slemish, and the planner had the cheek to tell me that there was no room for gates on the property, so a house could not be built there. I asked him where it stated in his remit that a house had to have a gate and a wall on which to hang a gate. There was a tree beside the opening and I said that the owner would attach a gate to the tree. The planner said that he would not accept that. However, he was eventually overruled and the man was able to build a house for his daughter who needed to be near her mother.
I disagree with planning like that. The people who live on the land should have the gains of the land. Planning must be in proportion to need. Where there is need in a rural district, a farmer should be entitled to planning permission. He should also be allowed to develop his land. I attended a planning appeal at which a man was told that he could build five houses on his property but that he would not get planning permission if he intended to put them up for sale. I said that it was his land and asked why, since he was in difficulty, he could not build houses and sell them. The Housing Executive then came along and built 25houses one field away.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Is the Member talking about Kircubbin?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: No. It was in north Antrim: dear, lovely northAntrim, far better than CountyDown.
That man was prohibited from building. It would have given him something for his retirement, a house for a member of his family, and he could have sold the rest. However, the Housing Executive came along and built 25houses one field away. There is something wrong with the planning laws. I am not in favour of building houses where they ought not to be, but many houses are built in such places. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was not bothered about that, but now when I drive along the road I look at every house and I wonder how some people ever got planning permission. Members would be amazed where permissions have been granted. We produced a report that said that that matter needs to be addressed and that there must be a realistic view of planning.
If the farmers are in difficulty and if, all things being equal, they can build property and sell it, they should be encouraged to do that and get some money back from their heritage. Who could refuse that particular proposition?
Then, of course, roads need a great injection of cash — even the roads in beautiful south Down. I used to spend my holidays there, in a place called Killowen. It is a lovely place, and I go along that way whenever I am in the area, just for old times sake. However, the roads have deteriorated. If roads are not maintained they reach a state where they need a very large injection of money. There is no way that one can build a road, say that it will do, and then use it continuously. When the time comes to upgrade it there is a tremendous amount of work to do. Rural roads need to be attended to, and attended to speedily. We must have an infrastructure that is safe and that is continually being improved. That is another part of the trouble with which we need to concern ourselves.
That might bring me to page 67 of the document, but I am glad that I made a moving speech, and that I talked my opposition away. I always like to make a moving speech and get people away who will not listen to sense.
What about this whole programme? What about the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? What about social services? Mr McGrady talked about the elderly. We need to think about the elderly. I visited a home, and the lady who lives there said to me, "I have lost my home help, I do not have her any more." What did the home help do? She lit a fire, made a cup of tea and enquired about the lady’s health. That was all the home help did, but she was the anchor of that elderly woman’s life, and now that anchor has been removed. When I meet and talk to old people they tell me about the terrible events that are happening — burglaries, old people being raped and other tragedies. Some of them live in desperate, terrible fear.
I have been a minister of religion for more than 54 years. I have visited thousands of homes. I know what I am talking about. The elderly deserve our best, but they are not getting it. We have a responsibility towards them.
I could go on and talk about many matters that are crying out for help, but we come back to the fact that unless we create stability, unless we create trust, unless our families can be educated in peace, unless we can get rid of those who harbour arms and use them, unless we get rid of those who cause explosions and maim and kill and destroy society we shall not be able to. We have a colossal task. Sometimes we shall despair. However, we must remember that it is not to despair that we are called into this world; it is to triumph. We can do the job if we are prepared to pay the price. I hope that this Province of ours has people who are prepared to pay that price so that we can get the job done for the better future of us all.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you, Dr Paisley. We have listened with great attention to your quite lengthy discourse. Unless there is Member who is prepared to speak for five minutes only, we should adjourn until tomorrow.

Dr Joe Hendron: I wholly defend Dr Paisley in the time he took to make that fine speech, which covered many topics. Shall I, as the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, and other Members be allowed a similar length of time tomorrow?

Sir John Gorman: We shall spend tomorrow morning debating the Programme for Government. We must wait and see how much ground we can cover in that time. Undoubtedly, you will be called to speak tomorrow. However, the next person on my list is Mr Maskey. I hope to see all of you tomorrow after prayers.
The debate stood suspended.
Adjourned at 5.57 pm.